Legal Opinion
Thomas Lynn Fields v. Lloyd H. Conover and Robert B. Woodward
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided July 1, 1971No. Patent Appeal 8516PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RICH, Judge.
This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Patent Interferences awarding priority to Conover and Woodward (hereinafter Conover), the senior party. Fields, Wilkinson and Kende (hereinafter Fields) appeal solely on the ground that Conover’s application, serial Ño. 209,269, filed July 11, 1962, does not support the counts, which were copied from Fields’ patent No. 3,167,579, issued January 26, 1965, on an application filed October 22, 1962. Neither party took testimony. We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The subject matter of this interference is substituted 4, 10-dioxo-5-hydroxy-l, 2, 3,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Application of Eric D. BrownCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1964
- Application of Carl A. Lukach, Setha G. Olson and Harold M. SpurlinCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
- Application of Klaus Heinz Risse, Ulrich Horlein and Wolfgang Wirth. Application of Ulrich Horlein, Wolfgang Wirth and Klaus Heinz RisseCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
- Application of Arthur H. AhlbrechtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002
- In re SmytheCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1973
- In re SmithCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1973
- In re ArkleyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1972
- In re SmithCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1972
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.