Legal Opinion

Rowe v. Holtz

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided February 8, 1932No. Patent Appeals 2891, 2892PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BLAND, Associate Judge.

The appeals at bar are both from a decision by the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office in an interference in which priority of invention was awarded to Holtz as to counts 3 and 6, and to Rowe as to counts I, 2, 4, and 5. Holtz appealed from the decision of the Board awarding to Rowe priority of invention of the subject-matter of counts 1, 2, 4, and 5, of which count 1 is illustrative, and follows: “1. A single-phase induction motor comprising a stator member having split poles and shading coils on the trailing sections of said split poles, and a rotor…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Deering v. Winona Harvester WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  2. Gleason v. DoschCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1930
  3. Rowe v. HoltzCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1932

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Dickinson v. ZurkoSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  2. Dickinson v. ZurkoSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  3. Field v. Knowles. Field v. KnowlesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1950
  4. Land v. DreyerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1946
  5. Fernand Georges Bac v. Alfred L. Loomis, Andrew Alford v. Alfred L. Loomis, (Two Cases)Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1958

3 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