Legal Opinion
Deibel v. Heise & Schumacher
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided February 3, 1931No. 2544PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HATFIELD, Associate Judge.
This is an appeal in an interference proceeding from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the decision of the Examiner of Interferences awarding priority of invention to appellees, Heise & Schumacher, for an alleged invention relating to linings for dry cells.
The counts in issue were taken from appellant’s application. Count 6 is illustrative. It reads:
“6. In a dry cell, the combination of a negative element, a covering of kraft paper applied to the active surface of said negative element, a positive element, and a mass of depolarizing mix compressed…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Federal Trade Commission v. P. Lorillard Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1922
- Scott v. LongtinCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1922
- Brogden v. SlaterCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1930
- Holslag v. HollupCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
3Cited by13 opinions
- Leslie C. Case v. Cpc International, Inc., and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Co-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Arthur Liebscher v. Wilson P. BoothroydCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1958
- Tansel v. HigonnetCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1954
- Fernand Georges Bac v. Alfred L. Loomis, Andrew Alford v. Alfred L. Loomis, (Two Cases)Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1958
- Martin v. FriendlyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1932
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.