Harold S. Hemstreet v. William S. Rohland

RICH, Judge.

This appeal is from a decision of the Board of Patent Interferences awarding “priority” to Rohland, 1 the junior party, solely on the ancillary ground that the disclosure of Hemstreet 2 does not support the language of the count. We reverse.

Shortly after the issuance of the Rohland patent, Hemstreet copied claim 1 thereof as claim 38 of his divisional application, the interference was declared and, after examination of the preliminary statements, the junior party Rohland was put under order to show cause why judgment should not be rendered against him since he did not allege any…