Legal Opinion
Correge v. Murphy
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided April 20, 1983No. Appeal No. 83-509; Interference No. 99,721PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MARKEY, Chief Judge.
The decision of the Board of Patent Interferences awarding priority to the junior party Dennis E. Murphy (Murphy), is affirmed
Background
Murphy, an employee of McDonnell Douglas Corp., was working in 1974 to solve an explosive decompression problem in DC-10 aircraft. Separation of the cargo door at altitude caused the aft cargo compartment below the main cabin to decompress. Differential pressure across the main cabin floor caused failure of the floor structure and control cables.
In May of 1974, Murphy conceived a sidewall vent to allow rapid decompression of the main…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- The International Glass Company, Inc. v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1969
- Radioptics, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1980
- Young v. DworkinCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1974
- Kamin v. KUHNAUOregon Supreme Court · 1962
- Peeler v. MillerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1976
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Umc Electronics Company v. The United States, Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
- Peter B. Cooper v. David GoldfarbCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Rca Corporation v. Data General Corporation, Defendant/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1989
- Yoshihiro Fujikawa, Mikio Suzuki, Hiroshi Iwasaki, Mitsuaki Sakashita and Masaki Kitahara v. Sompong Wattanasin, (Two Cases)Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
- Mark C. Newkirk v. Donald A. Lulejian, Alphonse W. Faure and Eugene F. FijalkowskiCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.