Hopkins v. Peters
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Hearing on an appeal from a decisiqn of the Commissioner of Patents in an interference proceeding. The Court in the opinion- stated the facts as follows: This is an interference proceeding relating to a calculating machine, the issue of which is contained in the following- three counts: -1. In’ a calculating machine, the combination of a plurality of sets of accumulators, a key mechanism whereby any one or any number of the accumulators may be caused to register one or more…
Read the full summary
Hearing on an appeal from a decisiqn of the Commissioner of Patents in an interference proceeding. The Court in the opinion- stated the facts as follows: This is an interference proceeding relating to a calculating machine, the issue of which is contained in the following- three counts: -1. In’ a calculating machine, the combination of a plurality of sets of accumulators, a key mechanism whereby any one or any number of the accumulators may be caused to register one or more numbers at a time, and means whereby the accumulations on one set of accumulators may be controlled by the accumulations…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Shepard
The question arose on the construction of rules 122 and 130. These are settled rules of practice in the Patent Office, consistent with law, and are intended to regulate the practice in the Patent Office, looking towards a speedier disposition of applications for patents.
Pule 122 provides that a motion like this to dissolve should contain a full statement of the grounds relied upon, and should, if possible, be made not later than thirty days after the statements of the parties in interference have been received and approved.
Pule 130 provides that where the patentability of a claim to an…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Creed v. PottsCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1938