In re Self

671 F.2d 1344, 213 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 1, 1982 CCPA LEXIS 184
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedFebruary 18, 1982
DocketAppeal No. 81-542
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 671 F.2d 1344 (In re Self) 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
In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 213 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 1, 1982 CCPA LEXIS 184 (ccpa 1982).

Opinion

RICH, Judge.

This appeal is from the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) sustaining final rejections of various claims, and making a new rejection under 37 CFR 1.196(b), in appellant’s application serial No. 809,645, for reissue of U. S. Patent 3,514,074 for “High Energy Loss Fluid Control.” We affirm.

Background

Two problems which have long vexed the industrial control valve art are severe noise and valve damage due to cavitation and erosion. These problems are most serious in “severe service” applications, such as in refineries, chemical plants, and nuclear power plants. The aerodynamic noise generated at such facilities is often so great that it constitutes not only an occupational health hazard but also a public nuisance. Cavitation and erosion can drastically shorten valve life. Cavitation is especially destructive. It occurs when a sudden decrease in pressure causes gas bubbles in a very rapidly flowing fluid, and then a sudden increase in pressure causes the bubbles to collapse. The resultant force can tear away the inside surfaces of a valve.

The invention is a fluid flow control device which reduces the velocity of fluids passing through it by forcing them through long, narrow channels which may have many abrupt turns. The velocity-reduction means specifically comprises a stack of abutting rings having grooves carved on their faces.

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

Related

In Re Hiniker Co.
150 F.3d 1362 (Federal Circuit, 1998)
In Re Schreiber
128 F.3d 1473 (Federal Circuit, 1997)
Westvaco Corporation v. International Paper Company
991 F.2d 735 (Federal Circuit, 1993)
Joy Technologies, Inc. v. Manbeck
751 F. Supp. 225 (District of Columbia, 1990)
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Larry A. Long
837 F.2d 727 (Sixth Circuit, 1988)
Tillotson, Ltd. v. Walbro Corporation
831 F.2d 1033 (Federal Circuit, 1987)
Roberts v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
665 F. Supp. 671 (N.D. Illinois, 1987)
Twin Disc, Inc. v. United States
10 Cl. Ct. 713 (Court of Claims, 1986)
Ball Corporation v. The United States
729 F.2d 1429 (Federal Circuit, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
671 F.2d 1344, 213 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 1, 1982 CCPA LEXIS 184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-self-ccpa-1982.