Home/Customs and Patent Appeals/Skinner v. Pacak

Skinner v. Pacak

452 F.2d 1390, 59 C.C.P.A. 759
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals·Decided January 13, 1972·No. No. 8573·Published

Opinion

WoRley, Chief Judge.

Skinner and Scott (hereafter Skinner) appeal from the decision of the Board of Patent Interferences awarding priority of a single count in interference No. 95,750 to Pacak. The count originated as claim 9 in Skinner patent No. 3,225,425 1 and was copied in Pacak application serial No. 538,853.2 That application was held entitled, through an intervening application, to the benefit of the November 23, 1959, filing date of application serial No. 854,957, which matured into Pacak patent No. 3,087,531, dated April 30, 1963.

No priority testimony was taken, the sole issue being whether the subject matter of the count is supported by Pacak serial No. 854,957 and the later Pacak applications.

The count reads:

4. In a method of forming sheaves, pulleys and similar grooved articles: the steps comprising forming a metal disc-shaped blank, rotating said blank, initially slitting said blank at its peripheral edge to form a peripheral groove and two angularly extending flanges, progressively pressing said flanges laterally, and expanding said groove while progressively slitting the blank.

Referring, as did the board, to serial No. 854,957 to exemplify Pacak’s disclosure,3 Figures 7, 8, 9, and 10 are reproduced:

[761] 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Skinner v. Pacak, 452 F.2d 1390, 59 C.C.P.A. 759 (ccpa 1972).

452 F.2d 1390 (Skinner v. Pacak) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jan A. Rajchman and Arthur W. Lo v. Newton F. Lockhart
339 F.2d 233 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1964)
Application of Julian Robert Anthony Beale
378 F.2d 970 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1967)
Loy W. Sockman and Elliott W. Brady v. Robert C. Switzer and Richard A. Ward
379 F.2d 996 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1967)
Deibel v. Heise & Schumacher
46 F.2d 570 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1931)
Martin v. Friendly
58 F.2d 421 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1932)
Mardis v. Hines
258 F. 945 (W.D. Arkansas, 1919)