In re Ashbaugh
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtJackson, Judge
This appeal is from a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming that of the Primary. Examiner, rejecting method claims 15 to 20, inclusive, of an application for a patent for a method and apparatus for injection of plastics, in a continuous strip. Eight apparatus claims were allowed.
The involved claims were rejected by the Primary Examiner as reciting nothing more than the mode of operation of appellant’s device, *903and because in tbe opinion of tbe examiner they do not recite a method of treating material, such as falls within the meaning of the statutes. The…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Expanded Metal Co. v. BradfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
- In re NicholsCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1948
- In re MeadCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1942
- In re SolakianCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1946
- In re CornellCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1945
3Cited by13 opinions
- Application of Zoltan TARCZYHORNOCHCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1968
- Application of HorvathCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1954
- In Re WashburnCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1950
- Application of GartnerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1955
- Application of KindermanCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1949
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.