Legal Opinion
Tansel v. Higonnet
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided September 17, 1954No. 6050PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
O’CONNELL, Judge.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Patent Interferences of the United States Patent Office awarding priority of invention of the subject matter defined by the two counts in issue to appellees Higonnet and Moyroud, hereinafter referred to as Higonnet.
The invention is regarded as a fundamental advance in the printing art whereby text or copy submitted for the purpose of having it printed is composed direct on film by a method of selective flash photography of the characters instead of the usual method of molding metal to form lines as in a linotype machine.
The…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Hildreth v. MastorasSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Field v. Knowles. Field v. KnowlesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1950
- Mergenthaler Linotype Co. v. Press Pub. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1893
- Deibel v. Heise & SchumacherCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931
- Leichsenring v. FeeemanCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1939
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Arthur W. Schnick v. Lawrence E. FennCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1960
- 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
- Application of William C. AnthonyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1969
- Edwin H. Land and Meroe M. Morse v. Francis A. Regan, Jr., Seamon A. Lincoln and Donald E. HansonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
- Ivar Jepson v. William D. Egly and Columbus W. Harris, (Two Cases)Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1956
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.