Legal Opinion

Adams and Wakefield v. Wolinski

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided January 3, 1961No. Special Patent Appeal 95PublishedCited by 3 opinions

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

  1. Beall v. OrmsbyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1946
  2. Thompson v. DunnCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1948
  3. Island Road Bottling Co. v. Drink-Mor Beverage Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1942
  4. Nelson v. BerryCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1932
  5. Wheeler v. KleinschmidtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1945

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Union Carbide Corp. v. Traver Investments, Inc.District Court, S.D. Illinois · 1962
  2. Nitto Boseki Co., Ltd. v. Owens-Corning FiberglasDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1984
  3. Arthur W. Langer, Jr., and Erik Tornqvist v. Daniel Kaufman and Bryce H. McMullenCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1969

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

Powered by the Exa API