Legal Opinion
James Harding v. Samuel Steingiser and Ival O. Salyer
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided June 20, 1963No. Patent Appeal 6893PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WORLEY, Chief Judge.
Harding, the junior party1 in an interference2 seeks reversal of the decision by the Board of Patent Interferences which awarded priority of invention to the senior party, Steingiser et al.3
The nature of the invention in issue is suggested by the single count, which reads:
“2. Stabilized polyethylene composition comprising a normally solid polymer of ethylene and a stabilizing amount below 0.5 percent of *7494,4'thiobis (6 ierf-butyl-meta-eresol).”
Both parties have discovered that polyethylene compositions may be stabilized by addition of small amounts of 4,4'thiobis (6…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Frederick F. Blicke v. Gino R. TrevesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1957
- William C. Elmore v. William F. SchmittCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1960
- Arthur W. Schnick v. Lawrence E. FennCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1960
- Teter v. KearbyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1948
- Romey A. Gaiser v. Cyril S. LinderCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1958
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- F. Brantley Scott and John H. Burton v. Roy P. FinneyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1994
- In Re Natta, Movant in the United States Patent Office Before the Examiner of Interferences, Interference No. 89634. Hogan v. Zletz v. Baxter v. Natta E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1968
- Edwin H. Land and Meroe M. Morse v. Francis A. Regan, Jr., Seamon A. Lincoln and Donald E. HansonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
- Henry W. Rimbach v. Willem Lambertus Wanmaker and Cornelis BakkerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1966
- Blicharz v. HaysCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1974
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.