Legal Opinion

Leichsenring v. Feeeman

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided May 1, 1939No. 4109PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Gaeeett, Presiding Judge,

delivered tlie opinion of the court:

This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office reversing the decision of the Examiner of Interferences in an interference proceeding involving a device designed to be associated with the brake applying system of an automotive vehicle to prevent unintended retrograde movement, or rolling backwards, of the vehicle. Its especial usefulness appears to be in situations where it becomes necessary to stop and then start the vehicle on an upgrade, but the counts do not so limit it. Such…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Dolbear v. American Bell Telephone CompanySupreme Court of the United States · 1888
  2. Hildreth v. MastorasSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
  3. Mergenthaler Linotype Co. v. Press Pub. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1893

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Application of William C. AnthonyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1969
  2. Boucher Inventions, Ltd. v. Sola Electric Co.District Court, District of Columbia · 1942
  3. Tansel v. HigonnetCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1954
  4. Robinson Aviation, Inc. v. Barry Corp.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1952
  5. Edgar M. Creamer, Jr. v. Loren R. Kirkwood and Alton J. TorreCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1962

6 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