Adams and Wakefield v. Wolinski
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
RICH, Judge.
The above entitled appeal arose out of a three-party interference, No. 87,508, which was entitled in the Patent Office, Keller, Garvin and McMillan v. Wolinski v. Adams and Wakefield. 1 Priority was awarded to Wolinski by the Board of Patent Interferences on July 25, I960. 2 September 20 Adams and Wakefield appealed to this court. Keller et al. did nothing until October 10 when they filed in the Patent Office their “Election Under 35 USC 141,” saying that they elected “to have all further proceedings conducted as provided in 35 USC 146.” It will be observed that this notice was…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Beall v. OrmsbyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1946
- Thompson v. DunnCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1948
- Island Road Bottling Co. v. Drink-Mor Beverage Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1942
- Nelson v. BerryCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1932
- Wheeler v. KleinschmidtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1945
3Cited by3 opinions
- Union Carbide Corp. v. Traver Investments, Inc.District Court, S.D. Illinois · 1962
- Nitto Boseki Co., Ltd. v. Owens-Corning FiberglasDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1984
- Arthur W. Langer, Jr., and Erik Tornqvist v. Daniel Kaufman and Bryce H. McMullenCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1969