Rion v. Ault
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
RICH, Judge.
This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Patent Interferences awarding priority to Ault et al., the senior party.1 Rion et al.2 appeal solely as to an issue which they assert, and which Ault denies, is ancillary to priority as hereinafter explained. We reverse and remand because we find there is no interference in fact.
The Counts
The parties’ inventions are both in the field of making vitreous enamels such as are applied to bathroom fixtures, kitchen sinks, and the like having a cast iron base. The counts recite a method of making a titania-opacified porcelain enamel frit…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Kropa v. RobieCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1951
- Myers v. FeigelmanCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1972
- Harrison D. Brailsford v. Marius Jean Lavet and Jacques Jean Gustave DietschCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
- Ray v. KronmillerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1948
- Howard C. Ludwig v. Jesse S. Sohn and Harold RobinsonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Squires v. CorbettCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1977
- Rion v. AultCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1973