Legal Opinion
Payne v. Hurley
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided June 12, 1934No. Patent Appeal 3310PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GRAHAM, Presiding Judge.
An interference was declared between a patent issued to the appellant, Hugh E. Payne, No. 1,793,130, issued upon an application, No-. 448,893, filed May 1, 1930, and an application of the appellee, Roy T. Hurley, Serial No. 435,461, filed March 13, 1930, for a similar invention.
The subject-matter of the-invention is expressed in one count which is as follows: “In a spark plug, the combination of a body piece having a central o-pening, a metallic quill passing through said opening, an insulating sleeve surrounding the quill, and a central metallic spindle driven into…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Corona Cord Tire Co. v. Dovan Chemical Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1928
- Fageol v. LyonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1923
- Fink v. HumelCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1934
3Cited by17 opinions
- Application of William L. Hartop, Jr., and Edward P. BrandesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1962
- Frederick F. Blicke v. Gino R. TrevesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1957
- William C. Elmore v. William F. SchmittCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1960
- Sinko Tool & Manufacturing Co. v. Automatic Devices Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
- Larsen v. Marzall, Commissioner of PatentsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1952
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.