Legal Opinion
Eugene F. Schwarzenbek and John Turkevich v. Bernard L. Evering, John R. Coley and William A. Wilson
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided June 9, 1966No. Patent Appeal 7490PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RICH, Acting Chief Judge.
This appeal is from the decision of-the Board of Patent Interferences awarding priority of invention in interference No. 89,674 to Evering, Coley and Wilson, hereinafter Evering et al.
The interference involves an application of Evering et al., entitled “Oxidative Reactivation of Platinum Hydroforming Catalysts,” serial No. 601,073, filed July 30, 1956, as a continuation-in-part of application serial No. 292,294, filed June 7, 1952. Schwarzenbek and Turkevich, hereinafter Schwarzenbek et al., are involved on their application for “Reaction of Platinum and/or Palladium…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Kropa v. RobieCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1951
- Mortsell v. LaurilaCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1962
- Foster v. AntisdelCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1899
- Oliver v. FelbelDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1902
3Cited by4 opinions
- Leslie C. Case v. Cpc International, Inc., and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Co-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- John J. Goodrich v. Arnold C. Harmsen and Burke P. Lokey, Burke P. Lokey v. Arnold C. Harmsen and John J. GoodrichCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
- Livia C. Schmierer and Jacques H. F. Valin v. John C. NewtonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1968
- John J. Goodrich v. Arnold C. Harmsen and Burke P. Lokey, Burke P. Lokey v. Arnold C. Harmsen and John J. GoodrichCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971