Legal Opinion

Akers v. Papst

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided July 8, 1940No. 4342PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLenroot, Judge

This is an interference proceeding wherein the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirmed a decision of the Examiner of Interferences. awarding .to appellee priority of the. invention described in the single count of the interference, which count reads as follows:

A door lock including an outside handle retractable into and projectable from a recess in the outer side of a door to which said lock is applied, yieldable means exerting a constant force tending to project said outside handle from said recess, an inside handle, means for releasably holding said outside handle in…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Loflin v. AultSupreme Court of Kansas · 1939

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Tidewater Patent Development Company, Incorporated v. Gillette CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1960
  2. Crane v. CarlsonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1942
  3. Miessner v. HoschkeDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1942
  4. Botnen v. DormanCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1950
  5. Daniels v. Permutit Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1942

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API