Re Fullagar
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Hearing on an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents refusing application for the reissue of a patent. The facts are stated in the opinion. 1. Reissue applications are not required to be supported by a verified showing, and hence the insufficiency of a verified showing affords no ground for rejecting appellant’s reissue application. U. S. Rev. Stat. sec. 4916; Gold & Stock Tel. Go. v..
Read the full summary
Hearing on an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents refusing application for the reissue of a patent. The facts are stated in the opinion. 1. Reissue applications are not required to be supported by a verified showing, and hence the insufficiency of a verified showing affords no ground for rejecting appellant’s reissue application. U. S. Rev. Stat. sec. 4916; Gold & Stock Tel. Go. v.. Wiley, 17 Fed. 234; Hartshorn v. Eagle Shade Boiler Go. 18 Fed. 90; Justi v. Glark, 108 Fed. 659. 2. An applicant for a reissue of a patent is only chargeable with the delay intervening between…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Shepard
This is an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents refusing an application for the reissue of a patent.
The proceeding has a confusing history on account of several preceding reissues and applications and interferences growing out of the same. The subject-matter of the invention is a fluid pressure turbine.
Hugh Francis Fullagar was granted a patent for such a turbine on an application filed April 18, 1901, for which an application for reissue was made also. Another application was filed by him September 16, 1901, on which a patent having sixteen claims (No. 746,061) was issued…
2Cited by1 opinion
- In re WittryCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1974