Legal Opinion
Linkow v. Linkow
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided June 30, 1975No. Patent Appeal No. 74-597PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MILLER, Judge.
This is an appeal by the senior party, Linkow, from the decision of the Board *1371of Patent Interferences 1 awarding “priority” to the junior party, Linkow and Edelman. Under the unusual facts of this case, the issue of “priority” turns on the question of who conceived the invention. Burden of proof was on the junior party. We reverse.
BACKGROUND
The interference involves a device to be implanted in a patient’s jawbone, to extend above the gum, and to provide support for an artificial tooth. Fig. 1 of Linkow’s patent and count 1 (bracketed numerals added) adequately illustrate the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Kawai v. MetlesicsCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1973
- Vernon C. Applegate and John H. Howell v. Otto Scherer, Heinz Frensch and Gerhard StählerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1964
- Arthur William Anderson and William Lawrence Truett v. Gustav Pieper, Hans Rickert and Eberhard SteinCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
- Ireland v. SmithCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1938
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Fina Oil and Chemical Co. And Fina Technology, Inc. v. John A. Ewen v. Abbas Razavi, Intervenor-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1997
- John H. Bruning v. Ryusho HiroseCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Elmar Bosies and Rudi Gall v. James J. Benedict and Christopher M. PerkinsCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1994
- Mikus v. WachtelCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1976
- Borror v. HerzCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1981
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.