Legal Opinion
In Re Arnold
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided December 5, 1950No. Patent Appeals 5721PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
JOHNSON, Judge.
The appellant filed an application in the United States Patent Office for letters patent covering a method of treating certain materials by means of an alternating electrostatic field so as to fuse and bond the surface of the materials through the selective agitation of molecules at the surface, ns distinguished from previously known methods of accomplishing by induction or dielectric heating similar results. The application was examined in the Patent Office as required by law, and the claims presented in the application were rejected as being unpatentable over certain patents…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Davison Chemical Corp. v. Joliet Chemicals, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1950
- Allen v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1943
- In re WalkerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1938
- In re MasonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1937
3Cited by2 opinions
- Armour Pharmaceutical Company, a Delaware Corporation v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., a Delaware Ware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1968
- Muehleisen v. PierceDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1953