Hopkins v. Riegger
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Appeal from a Decision by the Commissioner .of Patents. Interference proceeding in the Patent Office between Arthur T. Hopkins and Constantin Riegger. From a decision awarding priority to Riegger on all counts except one, Hopkins appeals.
1Opinion of the Court
SMYTH, Chief Justice.
This is an interference involving nine counts, which cover a subject-matter that relates to a tank ball or rubber float valve for the outlet in toilet flush tanks. The Commissioner of Patents awarded priority to Riegger on all the counts except No. 9, which was given to Hopkins, and the latter appeals.
Counts 1 and 4 illustrate the character of the invention. They are as follows:
1. A tank ball formed with a seat engaging portion of flexible rubber*, an upper portion of flexible rubber, and a reinforcement formed of rubber composition vulcanized to the upper portion for…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Greenawalt v. DwightCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1919
3Cited by7 opinions
- In re ZurkoCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Ball v. BarnhurstCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1921
- Massey v. RidgeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1921
- In Re Mary E. Zurko, Thomas A. Casey, Jr., Morrie Gasser, Judith S. Hall, Clifford E. Kahn, Andrew H. Mason, Paul D. Sawyer, Leslie R. Kendall, and Steven B. LipnerCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Kitselman v. ReidCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1920
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.