# Application of Lawrence A. Heinle

> Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · April 8, 1965 · 342 F.2d 1001

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9450551

## Case

- **Full name:** Application of Lawrence A. HEINLE
- **Court:** Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
- **Decided:** April 8, 1965
- **Citations:** 342 F.2d 1001; 52 C.C.P.A. 1164
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Almond
- **Judges:** Rich, Martin, Smith, Almond, Kirkpatrick
- **Cited by:** 15 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9450551

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- reversing Patent Office Board of Appeals double patenting rejection of claims to a single element E based on a patent claim to a combination of A, B, C, D, and E

## Opinion text

*1008 ALMOND, Judge, with whom MARTIN, Judge,
join (concurring).
I would reverse the double patenting rejection because of the terminal disclaimer filed by appellant. In re Robeson, 331 F.2d 610 , 51 CCPA 1271. I cannot agree with the majority that it is unnecessary to rely upon the disclaimers in order to reverse the board. The core claimed in the application before us is obvious in view of the core which is an element of the patent claims. Thus, allowance of the present application without a terminal disclaimer would result in an unlawful extension of the monopoly. See my dissenting opinion in In re Allen, 343 F.2d 482 , 52 CCPA -.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9450551. Public record. Not legal advice.