Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Tofe v. Winchell

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided March 31, 1981No. Appeal No. 80-553Published

1ConcurrenceMarkey, Chief Judge

I concur in the view that the best mode issue must be held ancillary to priority. I do so solely on the basis of a perceived need for consistency in the law.

Over the years, this court has continually expanded the list of issues it has considered ancillary to priority, for example, (1) whether an application was altered after its execution, Vandenberg v. Reynolds, 44 CCPA 873, 877, 242 F.2d 761, 764, 113 USPQ 275, 277 (1957); (2) right to make a count, Stalego v. Heymes, 46 CCPA 772, 774, 263 F.2d 334, 335, 120 USPQ 473, 475 (1959); (3) fraud, Norton v. Curtiss, 57 CCPA 1384, 1389, 433 F.2d…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Frederick H. Norton v. Lawrence E. CurtissCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
  2. Edwin J. Vandenberg v. William B. ReynoldsCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1957
  3. Nitz v. EhrenreichCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1976
  4. Weil v. FritzCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1978
  5. Charles J. Stalego and Wendell W. Drummond v. Pierre Rene Heymes and Ivan PeychesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1959

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API