Legal Opinion

Application of Robert M. Cole

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided January 23, 1964No. Patent Appeal 7033PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SMITH, Judge;

The Board of Appeals affirmed the examiner’s rejection of claims in appellant’s application 1 for a patent on a method and composition in which a low volatility insecticide, such as a pyrethrin, is propelled into the air by the subliming action of a highly volatile solid, such as paradichlorobenzene, a common moth-proofing material.

Claims, 4, 7, 9 and 10, all the claims remaining in the application, were finally rejected as “unpatentable over” Electrolux British Patent in view of either Chuck U. S. Patent or Algard British Patent. The issue thus presented arises under 35 U.S.C. §…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. HydeSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  2. Kemart Corp. v. Printing Arts Research Laboratories, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1953
  3. Application of George J. Handel, JrCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
  4. Application of RipperCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1948
  5. In re CaseyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1948

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. In re SmytheCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1973
  2. In re PearsonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1974
  3. In re LangerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1974
  4. Application of Klaus SchulzeCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
  5. In re PalmerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971

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

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

Powered by the Exa API