Legal Opinion

In Re Swan

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided February 11, 1931No. 2593PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GRAHAM, Presiding Judge.

The appellant has filed a divisional application for a claimed improvement in manifolding four-cylinder internal combustion engines. He was allowed, as we are advised, claims 1 to 8, inclusive, while claims 9, 10, 11, and 12 were rejected by the examiner and by the Board of Appeals. In this court the appellant has abandoned all of his claims except rejected claim 9, which is as follows:

“9. The combination with a four-eyclinder engine having suitable inlet ports, of a manifold having a main manifold duet level throughout its length, a straight or substantially straight…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. In re WoodsomeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1926
  2. In re HutterCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1925

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. In Re CopemanCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1943
  2. Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Natco Pharma LimitedCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2014
  3. In Re BargeCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1938
  4. In Re SlepianCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931
  5. Smith v. Kingsland, Commissioner of PatentsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1949

2 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