Legal Opinion
Palmer v. Dudzik
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided August 2, 1973No. Patent Appeal No. 8874PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RICH, Judge.
This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Patent Interferences awarding Dudzik,1 the junior party, priority of invention as to all ten counts, which relate to a method and apparatus used in the production of “set” yarns, on the ground that the senior party, Palmer et al.2 (hereinafter “Palmer”), had suppressed or concealed the invention within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(g). We affirm.
The Contested Subject Matter
The invention, a simple one, solves the problem of uneven shrinkage of “set” yarns in a steam autoclave or dye bath. Set yarns are produced from “texturizM”…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Mason v. HepburnCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1898
- In re ArkleyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1972
- Frederick F. Glass v. William C. De RooCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1956
- Adrian P. Brokaw v. Charles B. VogelCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1970
- Gallagher v. SmithCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1953
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Apotex Usa, Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
- Frank E. Paulik and Robert G. Schultz v. Nabil Rizkalla and Charles N. WinnickCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- Horwath v. LeeCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1977
- Dunlop Holdings Limited v. Ram Golf CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1975
- Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 2008
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.