In re Swett

451 F.2d 631, 59 C.C.P.A. 726, 172 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 72, 1971 CCPA LEXIS 237
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals·Decided December 9, 1971·No. No. 8575·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Almond, Judge.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals, adhered to upon reconsideration, affirming the rejection of the claim in appellant’s design application1 on the ground of double patenting in view of the claims in appellant’s utility patent.2

[727] The design application is for a lunch box container as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2 and 4. The five additional figures in the design application mainly illustrate in greater detail the features shown in the reproduced figures, which, for purposes of the discussion herein, should be sufficient.

The utility patent is also directed to a lunch box container. Since in double patenting situations it is proper to consider only the claims involved, we think it unnecessary to discuss what is disclosed in this patent. However, in order to aid in understanding the claims, we reproduce Figs. 2 and 3 of that patent:

[728]

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

In re Swett, 451 F.2d 631, 59 C.C.P.A. 726, 172 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 72, 1971 CCPA LEXIS 237 (ccpa 1971).

451 F.2d 631 (In re Swett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Phillips Petroleum Co. v. United States Steel Corp.
604 F. Supp. 555 (D. Delaware, 1985)
Wahl v. Rexnord, Inc.
481 F. Supp. 573 (D. New Jersey, 1979)
In re Deters
515 F.2d 1152 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1975)
Ropat Corp. v. McGraw-Edison Co.
393 F. Supp. 1108 (N.D. Illinois, 1975)
ROPAT CORPORATION v. McGraw-Edison Co.
393 F. Supp. 1108 (N.D. Illinois, 1975)
Mr. Hanger, Inc. v. Cut Rate Plastic Hangers, Inc.
372 F. Supp. 88 (E.D. New York, 1974)