Application of Raymond J. Heldt

433 F.2d 808, 58 C.C.P.A. 701
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedNovember 25, 1970
DocketPatent Appeal 8312
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 433 F.2d 808 (Application of Raymond J. Heldt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Customs and Patent Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Application of Raymond J. Heldt, 433 F.2d 808, 58 C.C.P.A. 701 (ccpa 1970).

Opinions

BALDWIN, Judge.

Heldt appeals from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals, adhered to on reconsideration, which affirmed the rejection of both claims in his application 1 as obvious over the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

The Invention

The invention before the court consists of an elongated, hollow tube, designed to be placed within a golf bag, in number corresponding to the number of golf clubs to be carried in the bag, so as to receive the grip and shaft portions of each club and thereby segregate the clubs from each other. Such storage tubes, it is said, not only facilitate insertion and withdrawal of the clubs into and from the bag, but also minimize the wear, imparted, particularly to the grip portion of the clubs.

Appellant’s specification acknowledges that the use of such storage tubes is not novel and mentions their general advantages, but also points out that it would be of some value to reinforce the structure of the tubes so that they “do not become easily deformed so as to inhibit the insertion of clubs therein or the withdrawal of clubs therefrom.”2 Ap[810]*810pellant produces this reinforcement by providing the storage tube with reinforcing rings made with their inside diameter slightly larger than the outer diameter of the storage tube and located at the tube ends, being confined there by outwardly curling the end portion of the tube to overlap around the rings. The claimed invention is illustrated thusly:

The Rejection

Claim 1 was rejected as being unpatentable over Upham 3 in view of Thorsby4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claim 2 was rejected over the same two references further in view of Branseum.5

The Upham patent is drawn to a golf club carrying device made up of a number of elongated “plastic” tubes attached to a wheeled cart as shown here:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re John R. Fritch
972 F.2d 1260 (Federal Circuit, 1992)
In Re Diane M. Dillon
919 F.2d 688 (Federal Circuit, 1990)
In Re Wayne O. Johnson
747 F.2d 1456 (Federal Circuit, 1984)
In Re Frank N. Piasecki and Donald N. Meyers
745 F.2d 1468 (Federal Circuit, 1984)
Stevenson v. International Trade Commission
612 F.2d 546 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1979)
In re Ellis
476 F.2d 1370 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1973)
In re Freeman
474 F.2d 1318 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1973)
In re Fielder
471 F.2d 640 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1973)
In re Palmer
451 F.2d 1100 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1971)
Application of Raymond J. Heldt
433 F.2d 808 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
433 F.2d 808, 58 C.C.P.A. 701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/application-of-raymond-j-heldt-ccpa-1970.