Legal Opinion
In re Holladay
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided October 26, 1978No. Appeal No. 78-552PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FORD, Judge.
This is an appeal from the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) sustaining the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-4 of application serial No. 478,040, filed June 10, 1974, for “Tire Changing Apparatus,” a continuation-in-part of application serial No. 373,491, filed June 25, 1973. We affirm.
Background
In order to mount a tubeless tire on a rim, the inner edges of the tire (beads) must be brought into sealing contact with the rim (seated). Bead seating is conventionally accomplished by first lifting the tire on…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- In re MerchantCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1978
- Application of John P. Swentzel (The Carborundum Co., Assignee)Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1955
3Cited by7 opinions
- In re WoodCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1979
- In re PayneCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1979
- In re ReuterCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1981
- In Re Wayne O. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- In re ReuterCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1981
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.