Scinta v. Anderson

3 Citing cases

  1. Franklin v. Hopper

    312 F.2d 949 (C.C.P.A. 1963)   Cited 3 times

    The examiner's failure to consider Franklin's briefs was not traversed by Franklin in view of the examiner's denial of Hopper's motion to dissolve. Hopper renewed his motions, designated (1), (2) and (3) above, at final hearing before the Patent Office Board of Patent Interferences. The board, citing Josserand v. Taylor, Jr., 138 F.2d 58, 31 CCPA 709; Scinta et al. v. Anderson, 193 F.2d 1020, 39 CCPA 790, found motion (1) raises a matter ancillary to priority. It also found motion (3) involves a matter ancillary to priority so far as it relates to the right to rely on an earlier copending application.

  2. Anderson Company v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.

    265 F.2d 755 (7th Cir. 1959)   Cited 32 times

    The history of this patent is marked with contention and litigation. Anderson conceived the invention of the patent in suit in 1944 and filed his application on December 13, 1945. While the application was pending in the Patent Office in 1947 it was involved in a contested interference with an application for a patent owned by Trico Products Corporation. Anderson was awarded priority of invention by the Patent Office Interference Examiner, and the award was affirmed by the Patent Office Board of Appeals and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. See Scinta v. Anderson, 1951, 193 F.2d 1020, 39 CCPA 790. During the pendency of the application and the interference proceeding many of Anderson's claims were rejected by the Examiner both as originally filed and as amended.

  3. Anderson Company v. Trico Products Corp.

    162 F. Supp. 224 (W.D.N.Y. 1958)   Cited 4 times

    During the following interference proceeding, the examiner refused to broaden the interference claim and then awarded priority to Anderson 634,730. On appeal to the Board of Interference Examiners of the Patent Office, and to the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, it was held that the refusal of the examiner to allow substitution of Scinta-sole was not reviewable, but that the decision of the examiner that the Anderson disclosure supported the requirement in the interference claim of an elongated flexible backing strip was not error as a matter of law. Scinta v. Anderson, 193 F.2d 1020, 39 C.C.P.A., Patents, 790. That finding is not binding on this court in this action.