In Re Hardin Y. Fisher
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Per curiam
The Patent Office petitions for rehearing or, in the alternative-, vacation of our decision and remand “for consideration of the pertinent technical authorities.”
The issue on which our decision of May 13, 1971, rests is obviousness under 35 USC 103. (58 CCPA 1192, 441 F. 2d 664, 169 USPQ 602.) That issue turned on whether appellant obtained u/nex'peeted results, particularly in reduction of the 'heat produced during operation of the motor. On the question of the expectedness of heat reduction, the prior art relied on by the Patent Office shed little if any light. In struggling with the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- In re FisherCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
3Cited by9 opinions
- In Re ComiskeyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2009
- In re ArkleyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1972
- Gordon Gould v. Donald J. Quigg, Commissioner of Patents and TrademarksCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
- In Re ComiskeyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2007
- In re VossCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1977
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.