Roy E. Ferree v. Harry D. Shephard, Jr. And Pearl Thelma Griffiths, Administratrix of the Estate of Norman J. Griffiths
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Per curiam
Appellees’ motion to dismiss this appeal turns on the single issue of whether appellant’s reasons of appeal are sufficient under 35 U.S.C. § 142 to raise an appealable issue within the limited statutory jurisdiction of this court. More specifically, the issue is whether appellant’s reasons of appeal raise any issue other than the patentability of the counts. The issue arises in a contested interference action. 1
The jurisdiction of the Board of Patent Interferences in this proceeding was limited to a determination of the question of priority of invention, 35 U.S.C. § 135, and our jurisdiction…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Frederick F. Glass v. William C. De RooCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1956
- Marion Den Beste v. Harry MartinCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1958
- Walter H. Wirkler v. Corles M. Perkins and Alfred BennettCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1957
- Fernand Georges Bac v. Alfred L. Loomis, Andrew Alford v. Alfred L. Loomis, (Two Cases)Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1958
- Hess v. DreyfussCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1939
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Rex Chainbelt Inc. v. Borg-Warner Corporation, Rex Chainbelt Inc. v. Carman Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1973
- Stansbury v. BondCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1973
- E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Celanese Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1968
- Pyles v. KnightDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1971