Application of Ernst Johan Jens Henriksen
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
SMITH, Judge.
The sole issue presented fcy this appeal is the interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 120. Simply stated, the question is whether the language of section 120 limr its an applicant to the benefit of the filing date of the second preceding application in a chain of copending applications. We reverse the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals, 1 154 USPQ 53 (Pat.Off.Bd.App.1966). 2 We hold here that under that section of the statute, in view of its long-standing interpretation by the Patent Office and the patent bar, there is no statutory basis for fixing an arbitrary limit to the…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. And Henry Glass & Co. v. Martin Weiner Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1960
- General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Godfrey v. EamesSupreme Court of the United States · 1864
- Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Ferdinand Gutmann Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Carl Otto v. Koppers Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Wheeling Steel Corporation, a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1957
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- In Re Kuriappan P. Alappat, Edward E. Averill and James G. LarsenCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1994
- Transco Products Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc. And Performance Contracting Group, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1994
- In re HoganCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1977
- In Re Stephen B. Bogese IICourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002
- Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Alpine Electronics of America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2010
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.