Legal Opinion
Rion v. Ault
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided August 23, 1973No. Patent Appeal No. 8591PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion
ON REHEARING
RICH, Judge.
Our original opinion of February 24, 1972, was published at 455 F.2d 570. We there reversed the decision of the Board of Patent Interferences awarding priority to Ault et al. (Ault) and remanded because we found “there is no interference in fact.” Ault petitioned for rehearing and Rion et al. (Rion) opposed. The Patent Office Solicitor called our attention to the fact that under the Patent Office Rules a holding of no interference in fact is not appropriate under the facts of this case and that the case of Brailsford v. Lavet, 50 CCPA 1367, 318 F.2d 942 (1963), which…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Harrison D. Brailsford v. Marius Jean Lavet and Jacques Jean Gustave DietschCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
- Joseph Chedaker, George Gilbert Hoberg and Eugene Arthur Sands v. Arthur W. LoCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
- Rion v. AultCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1972
3Cited by5 opinions
- Fontijn v. OkamotoCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1975
- Squires v. CorbettCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1977
- Farrell Lines, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1982
- Pingree v. HullCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1975
- Farrell Lines, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1981