Legal Opinion
Arnold v. Langmuir
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided January 13, 1930No. Patent Appeal 2188PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GRAHAM, Presiding Judge.
Interference proceedings were instituted in the Patent Office between the appellant, Harold D. Arnold, and the appellee, Irving Langmuir. The subjeet-matter of the interference is contained in twelve counts, three of which are typical and which are as follows:
“1. An oscillation generator comprising a resonant circuit for determining the frequency supplied by said generator; a load circuit adapted to be energized by said generator and a three electrode electric discharge repeater for transferring alternating current energy from said generator to said load circuit and…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Roberts v. RyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Webster Electric Co. v. Splitdorf Electrical Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Chapman v. WintroathSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Dwight & Lloyd Sintering Co. v. GreenawaltCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1928
- Howe MacHine Co. v. National Needle Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1890
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Acme Highway Products Corporation, Cross-Appellee v. The D. S. Brown Company and Delmont D. Brown, Cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1970
- Teter v. KearbyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1948
- Jones v. Freed-Eisemann Radio Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931
- Dale Electronics, Inc. v. R. C. L. Electronics, Inc.District Court, D. New Hampshire · 1973
- Application of CampbellCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1954
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.