In re Vogel
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
422 F.2d 438 (1970)
Vogel (applicant) filed a patent application claiming a process for preserving the shelf life of meat. Vogel filed his application in January 1964, while he had another co-pending patent application that also claimed a method of preserving meat and issued March 1964. The patent examiner rejected the January 1964 application claims as obvious in light of the March 1964 patent and a single prior art reference, a patent to Ellies. Through this rejection, the examiner argued that Vogel was attempting to double patent the same invention. The Patent Office Board of Appeals affirmed the rejection. Vogel appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Lane, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 168,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.