Legal Opinion
Martin J. Blickstein and Martin A. Mittler v. Hugo Seiden
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided June 22, 1967No. Patent Appeal 7773PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WORLEY, Chief Judge.
The controlling issue in this appeal from the Board of Patent Interferences is whether Seiden, senior party by virtue of his March 29, 1962, filing date, has satisfactorily proved an actual reduction to practice of the instant invention prior to December 20, 1961. That is the earliest date asserted in the preliminary statement of Blickstein and Mittler (Blickstein), the junior party by virtue of their May 31, 1962, filing date. From our review of the record we agree with the board that Seiden has discharged his burden of proof. 1
The invention relates to an adjustable…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- James A. Patterson and Glenn K. Lissner v. Karl-Heinz HauckCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
- Torsten Hasselstrom and Malcolm C. Henry v. Blaine C. McKusickCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
- James F. Gordon v. Burton F. Hubbard and Gaynard H. FosdickCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
- Benjamin Phillips and Paul S. Starcher v. Arthur W. CarlsonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1960
- Guinot v. HullCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1953
3Cited by2 opinions
- Williams v. Administrator of the National Aeronautics & Space AdministrationCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1972
- Tyco Healthcare Group LP v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2007