Legal Opinion
Gould v. Hellwarth
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided February 15, 1973No. Patent Appeal No. 8791PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LANE, Judge.
This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Patent Interferences awarding Hellwarth, the junior party, priority of invention as to two counts to a so-called “Q-switched” or “Giant Pulse” laser. Hellwarth is involved on his application serial No. 128,458 filed August 1, 1961.1 The appellant, Gould, is involved on his application serial No. 804,540 filed April 6, 1959.2 The determinative issue is whether the disclosure of the Gould application was adequate to enable a person skilled in the art to make an operable device (35 U.S.C. § 112). We agree with the board that it was not…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Gordon Gould v. Arthur L. Schawlow and Charles H. TownesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1966
- Application of Lemuel D. Wooddy, Jr., and William D. MooreCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1964
- In re JoliotCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1959
3Cited by5 opinions
- Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002
- Gordon Gould v. Donald J. Quigg, Commissioner of Patents and TrademarksCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
- Gordon Gould v. Gerald J. Mossinghoff, Honorable Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, in His Official CapacityCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1983
- Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002
- In re GouldCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1982