Charles B. Swain and Albert G. Schuessler v. Bob C. Crittendon
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
SMITH, Judge.
This appeal by Swain et al. from an award of priority to Crittendon raises the single issue of whether Crittendon is entitled under 35 U.S.C. § 120 to rely upon the filing date of a parent application as establishing priority of inven tion. Resolution of this issue requires 1) a determination of whether the parent application contains in fact a disclosure of the subject matter of the counts, and 2) if so, a further determination of whether such disclosure is legally sufficient to support an award of priority.
Some historical background is required in order to understand the issue…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Marion Den Beste v. Harry MartinCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1958
- Serge A. Loukomsky v. Hans GerlichCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1959
- Otto Henning v. Scott F. HuntCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1955
3Cited by14 opinions
- In re SmytheCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1973
- Reese v. HurstCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1981
- Phillips Petroleum Co. v. United States Steel Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1987
- Application of Klaus HafnerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1969
- Samuel P. McCutchen Jr., and Jack E. Eskilson v. Francis A. OliverCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1966
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.