Revision of Patent Office Interference Practice: Hearings Before the Committee on Patents, House of Representatives, Seventy-eithth Congress, Second Session, on H.R. 3264, to Amend the Patent Laws with Respect to Practice in Interference Cases. February 24, 1944
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1944 - 95 lappuses
Lietotāju komentāri - Rakstīt atsauksmi
Ierastajās vietās neesam atraduši nevienu atsauksmi.
action administrative award adverse amendments American Bar Association appeal applicant approval attorneys BARNETT better bill chairman changes Church bill claims Cleveland Commissioner committee complaint conclusive consideration considered contest decide decision delay determination discussion district courts effect eliminate entitled establish evidence examiners existing expense fact favor filed final further give grant hearing House improvement interest interference practice interference proceedings interfering inventor involved issuance issue judges junior party jurisdiction LANHAM legislation litigation meeting motions objections obtain paragraph Patent Law Association Patent Office patent section pending possible preliminary present interference present practice prior priority of invention priority proceedings procedure proofs proposed question of priority reason recommendations record referred rejected render Representatives residing respect result Revised Statutes rules senior showing statement subject matter submit suggested suit taken technical testimony tion United unless various vote witnesses
59. lappuse - Sutton, chairman of the section of patent, trade-mark, and copyright law of the association.
48. lappuse - Whenever a patent on application is refused, either by the Commissioner of Patents or by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia upon appeal from the Commissioner, the applicant may have remedy by bill in equity; and the court having cognizance thereof, on notice to adverse parties and other due proceedings had, may adjudge that such applicant is entitled, according to law, to receive a patent for his invention, as specifted in his claim, or for any part thereof, as the facts in the case may...
48. lappuse - Commissioner to issue such patent on the applicant filing in the Patent Office a copy of the adjudication and otherwise complying with the requirements of law. In all cases where there is no opposing party a copy of the bill shall be served on the Commissioner; and all the expenses of the proceedings shall be paid by the applicant, whether the final decision is in his favor or not.
20. lappuse - Whenever an application is made for a patent which, in the opinion of the commissioner, would interfere with any pending application, or with any unexpired patent, he shall give notice thereof to the applicants, or applicant and patentee, as the case may be, and shall direct the primary examiner to proceed to determine the question of priority of invention. And the commissioner may issue a patent to the party who is adjudged the prior inventor...
48. lappuse - ... notice with the Commissioner that he elects to have all further proceedings conducted as provided in section 146 of this title.
20. lappuse - If any applicant is dissatisfied with the decision of the Board of Appeals, he may appeal to the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, in which case he waives his right to proceed under section 63 of this title.
26. lappuse - You are hereby notified of my appeal to the US Court of Customs and Patent Appeals from the decisions of the board of appeals, rendered on or about the . day of , 19 . . . , rejecting my above-entitled application and refusing me a patent for the invention set forth therein.
48. lappuse - Appeals, provided that such appeal shall be dismissed if any adverse party to such interference shall, within twenty days after the appellant shall have filed notice of appeal according to section 60 of this title, file notice with the Commissioner of Patents that he elects to have all further proceedings conducted as provided in section 63.
30. lappuse - Upon principle and authority, therefore, it must be laid down as a rule that where the question decided in the Patent Office is one between contesting parties as to priority of invention, the decision there made must be accepted as controlling upon that question of fact in any subsequent suit between the same parties, unless the contrary is established by testimony which in character and amount carries thorough conviction.