Frederick H. Norton v. Lawrence E. Curtiss
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
BALDWIN, Judge.
Norton appeals from the decision of the Board of Patent Interferences awarding priority to Curtiss of the two counts in interference No. 93,002 involving the applications 1 2 of the two parties.* Curtiss is the senior party because of his earlier filing date. Both parties have presented considerable evidence in the nature of testimony and documentary as well as physical exhibits.
The Invention of the Counts
The invention at issue deals with the art which has come to be called “fiber optics”. In this field, optical fibers, made of flexible, light-transmitting material and having a…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Precision Instrument Manufacturing Co. v. Automotive Maintenance MacHinery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food MacHinery & Chemical Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
- United States v. American Bell Telephone Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Mowry v. WhitneySupreme Court of the United States · 1872
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by158 opinions
- American Hoist & Derrick Company, Cross-Appellee v. Sowa & Sons, Inc., Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Kingsdown Medical Consultants, Ltd. And E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Hollister IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
- Manville Sales Corporation, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Paramount Systems, Inc., Robert S. Butterworth and Anthony J. DisimoneCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1990
- W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Garlock, Inc., Appellee/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
- C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
153 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.