Legal Opinion
Application of Marvin C. Van Wanderham, Warren W. Worthley and Carl R. Comolli
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided June 15, 1967No. Patent Appeal 7781PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SMITH, Judge.
The issue presented is whether, in view of the facts of record, appellants’ invention relating to cryogenic liquid systems, is obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. The real party in interest, by virtue of an assignment, is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
All three of the appealed claims were considered together. Appealed claim 22 describes a cryogenic liquid system as follows:
22. In a rocket propelled missile booster cryogenic liquid propellant flow system for uniformly supplying a cryogenic liquid propellant from a propellant storage tank to the…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Potts v. CreagerSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Tilghman v. ProctorSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ray-O-Vac Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Expanded Metal Co. v. BradfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Stevenson v. International Trade CommissionCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1979
- Application of Richard E. Warner and Virginia Ann WarnerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
- Penda Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1993
- In re PagliaroCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1981
- Twin Disc, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1986
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.