Legal Opinion
Briggs v. Kaisling
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Decided April 3, 1923No. Nos. 1552-1554PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ROBB, Associate Justice.
These are appeals from decisions of the Patent Office in interference proceedings, and each involves an elec-* *255trical switch of the type used to control the lighting, ignition, and other circuits of a motor vehicle. A single record embraces all the evidence. Kaisling has one application involved, while the Briggs & Stratton Company is the assignee of all adverse interests covered by the other applications. It is apparent, therefore, that in substance and effect this is but a single case.
We first will consider Kaisling’s contentions in appeal No. 1553, wherein the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- In re RobertsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1920
- Morgan Engineering Co. v. Alliance Mach. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1909
- Bijur v. KenningtonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1922
- Westinghouse Mach. Co. v. C. & G. Cooper Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1917
3Cited by10 opinions
- Duffy v. TegtmeyerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1974
- Application of StrainCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1951
- Manny v. GarlickCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1943
- Union Switch & Signal Co. v. Kodel Electric & Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1932
- Coast v. DubbsCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1937
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.