Application of Charles T. Fuetterer
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
RICH, Judge.
This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims 38-49 in application Ser. No. 498,089, entitled “Tire Treads and Rubber Stock Therefor.” The claims stand rejected solely as “failing to define the alleged invention properly.” More specifically, claims 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, and 48 have been rejected as “indefinite and ambiguous” and all claims as “unduly broad and functional.”
Appellant’s invention relates to a tread stock usable, for example, in vehicle tire treads which are alleged to “improve the traction of * * * tires when…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Boyden Power-Brake Co. v. Westinghouse Westinghouse v. Boyden Power-Brake Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- O'Reilly v. MorseSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
- Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. WalkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1997
- I. Melbourne Greenberg, M.D. v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
- In Re Donaldson Company, IncCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1994
- O.I. Corporation v. Tekmar Company IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1997
- Application of Walter L. Borkowski and John J. Van VenrooyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1970
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.