Legal Opinion

Richard J. Clauss and Henry Brown v. Donald Gardner Foulke, Otto Kardos and Herman Koretzky

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided June 22, 1967No. Patent Appeal 7683PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WORLEY, Chief Judge.

Clauss and Brown 1 appeal from the decision of the Board of Patent Inter ferences awarding priority of invention to the senior party, Foulke, Kardos and Koretzky, 2 of a process for producing bright nickel deposits from an electroplating bath, as reflected in the only count:

1. The process for producing bright nickel deposits which comprises electrodepositing nickel from an aqueous solution of at least one nickel salt characterized in that there is dissolved in the nickel plating bath at least about 1 millimole per liter of a compound of the formula

Rl-0-CH2-C E= C-CH2-O-R2…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Heard v. BurtonUnited States Customs Court · 1964
  2. James L. Gianladis v. Gus S. KassCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
  3. Wolfgang B. Klemperer v. Nathan C. PriceCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1959
  4. Vandenberg v. ReynoldsCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1959
  5. Young v. BullittCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1956

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Knorr v. PearsonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1982
  2. Norman W. Kirschke and General Electric Company v. William C. LamarCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1970
  3. Shindelar v. HoldemanCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1980
  4. Naber v. CricchiCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1977
  5. James C. Fang v. Elinor M. Hankins and William D. EmmonsCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1968

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API