Legal Opinion

In re Ashbaugh

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided March 1, 1949No. 5535PublishedCited by 13 opinions

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

  1. Expanded Metal Co. v. BradfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
  2. In re NicholsCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1948
  3. In re MeadCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1942
  4. In re SolakianCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1946
  5. In re CornellCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1945

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Application of Zoltan TARCZYHORNOCHCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1968
  2. Application of HorvathCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1954
  3. In Re WashburnCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1950
  4. Application of GartnerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1955
  5. Application of KindermanCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1949

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API