Legal Opinion

Putman v. Dudas

District Court, District of Columbia

Decided March 28, 2008No. Civil Action 05-1796(LFO)PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM & OPINION

LOUIS F. OBERDORFER, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Harold Putman tried to patent an “automatic transaction machine,” commonly known as an automatic teller machine or ATM, with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. When the patent examiner rejected all fifty-six claims in his application, Plaintiff appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. The Board affirmed the patent examiner in part. In doing so, the Board concluded that Plaintiff had not properly briefed his appeal and therefore declined to consider either his appeal brief or his reply brief. This…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrathSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
  3. Hoover Co. v. CoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  4. In re RasmussenCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1981
  5. Monsanto Company v. KampDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1967

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Hitachi Koki Co., Ltd. v. DollDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2009
  2. Hitachi Koki Co., Ltd. v. DudasDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2008
  3. Hitachi Koki Co., Ltd. v. DukasDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2009

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

Powered by the Exa API