Legal Opinion
Field v. Knowles. Field v. Knowles
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided June 30, 1950No. Patent Appeals 5692, 5693PublishedCited by 43 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
JOHNSON, Judge.
On August 28, 1942, an interference, No. 80,398 was declared by the Primary Examiner in the United States Patent Office between the patent applications of Crosby Field, No. 352,709, filed August 15, 1940, and Frank W. Knowles, No. 262,869, filed March 20, 1939. The single count of the interference related to Field’s claim 41 and Knowles’s claim 50 which the parties had added to their applications at the suggestion of the examiner for interference purposes. On February 12, 1943, Knowles moved to dissolve the interference alleging inoperativeness of the Field device.…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Hildreth v. MastorasSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Mason v. HepburnCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1898
- Townsend v. SmithCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1929
- Sun Ray Gas Corp. v. Bellows-Claude Neon Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1931
- Standard Cartridge Co. v. Peters Cartridge Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1896
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- Richard C. Price v. Dale R. SymsekCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
- Commissioner v. BilderSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company v. Berkley and Company, Inc., E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company v. Berkley and Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1980
- John H. Coleman v. Martin B. DinesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- In Re Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litigation. Sauquoit Fibers Company v. Leesona Corporation, Kayser-Roth Corporation (In Its Own Name and D/B/A Kayser-Roth Hosiery Companyand Kayser-Roth Hosiery Co., Inc.) v. Leesona Corporation, Leesona Corporation v. The Duplan CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1974
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.