Wagoner v. Barger
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
Rich, Acting Chief Judge.
This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Patent Interferences in interference No. 95,734 awarding priority to Barger and Haggerty (hereinafter Barger) ,1 senior party by virtue of having been given the benefit of the December 15, 1961, filing date of a parent application.2 Wagoner and Protzman (hereinafter Wagoner)3 are concededly entitled to the December 12,1962, filing date of their parent application,4 but were held below, in a decision from which they did not appeal, not to be entitled to the April 3,1961, filing date of their grandparent application.5…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Application of Carl A. Lukach, Setha G. Olson and Harold M. SpurlinCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1971
- In re ArkleyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1972
- Brand v. ThomasCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1938
- In re SmithCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1972
- Myers v. FeigelmanCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1972
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Ralston Purina Company v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- Transco Products Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc. And Performance Contracting Group, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1994
- Gilbert P. Hyatt v. Gary W. BooneCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Utter v. HiragaCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
- Kennecott Corporation v. Kyocera International, Inc. And Kyoto Ceramic Co., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.