Legal Opinion
John H. Coleman v. Martin B. Dines
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided February 8, 1985No. Appeal 84-1121; Interference 100,492PublishedCited by 94 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DAVIS, Circuit Judge.
This appeal is from the judgment of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Patent Interferences (Board), Interference No. 100,492, awarding priority of the count to the junior party Dines, and others (Dines). We affirm.
I. The Interference
The subject matter of the interference is directed to a method of separating isotopes of an element. Prior to the current applications, those skilled in the art had tried to take advantage of the fact that the absorption spectra of atoms of an element exhibit an isotopic shift, and that it should be possible to excite isotopes of…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Stock Pot Restaurant, Inc. v. Stockpot, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Field v. Knowles. Field v. KnowlesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1950
- Mergenthaler v. ScudderCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1897
- Leslie C. Case v. Cpc International, Inc., and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Co-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Myers v. FeigelmanCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1972
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by94 opinions
- Hybritech Incorporated v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986
- Richard C. Price v. Dale R. SymsekCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
- Amgen, Inc., Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Genetics Institute, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
- In Re Jack R. Wands, Vincent R. Zurawski, Jr., and Hubert J.P. SchoemakerCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
- Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., and Novopharm, Inc. And Novopharm, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1994
89 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.