Legal Opinion
Diamond v. Woodyard
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided January 16, 1951No. Patent Appeal 5729PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
O’CONNELL, Judge.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Interference Examiners of the United States Patent Office awarding to ap-pellees priority of invention of the subject matter defined by counts 5 and 6, which read as follows:
“5. An electric discharge device comprising means for producing a stream of electrical charges, a hollow-body resonator interposed in the path of said stream, a portion of said resonator being capable of change in position to vary the resonant frequency of said resonator, and thermal means connected to said portion for changing the position of said…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Field v. Knowles. Field v. KnowlesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1950
- Teter v. KearbyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1948
- In re HerthelCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1949
- Thompson v. HamiltonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1946
- Anderson v. WalchCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1946
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Radio Corporation of America and United States of America v. International Standard Electric CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1956