Legal Opinion
Israel v. Cresswell
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided February 10, 1948No. 5394PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGakkett, Presiding Judge
This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Interference Examiners of the United States Patent Office awarding priority to the party 'Cresswell upon the single count involved, which reads as follows:
In the manufacture of viscose yarn wherein a viscose solution is extruded through minute orifices of a spinneret into an acid precipitating bath to form filaments and the like therefrom, the step which comprises spinning the viscose filaments in the presence of a very small amount of a dissolved, substantially stable, surface-active polymerized ethylene oxide, whereby incrustation of the…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Monsanto Company v. Mycogen Plant Science, Inc. And Agrigenetics, Inc., Defendants-Cross and Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Defendant-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
- Senkus v. JohnstonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1948
- Armour and Company v. Wilson & Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1958
- Texas Instruments Inc. v. United States International Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
- Texas Instruments Incorporated v. United States International Trade Commission, and Analog Devices, Inc., and Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, Integrated Device Technology, Inc., Lsi Logic Corporation and Vlsi Technology, Inc., Intervenors. Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, Integrated Device Technology, Inc., Lsi Logic Corporation and Vlsi Technology, Inc., and Analog Devices, Inc. v. United States International Trade Commission, and Texas Instruments Incorporated, IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.