Application of Ignatius Nurkiewicz

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• the Patent Office “has not cited anything to dispute [applicant’s] * * * theory” and “no prior art * * * discloses” the features of applicant’s invention
• the Patent Office \has not cited anything to dispute [applicant's] * * * theory\ and \no prior art * * * discloses\ the features of applicant's invention

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Application of Richard E. Warner and Virginia Ann Warner
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1967-06-29· cited 31×
• Edwin L. Reynolds, Acting Commissioner of Patents v. Elie P. Aghnides
  D.C. Circuit· 1966-02-18· cited 16×
• Application of Jack H. Hofstetter
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1966-10-06· cited 12×
• Application of Johannes Heyna, August Bauer and Klaus Berner
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1966-07-28· cited 5×
• Aghnides v. Reynolds
  District of Columbia· 1965-05-11· cited 3×

Cites

1 case in this archive is cited by this case.

• Application of Claus L. Sporck
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1962-05-04· cited 32×