Sussman v. Cooper

537 F.2d 531, 190 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 418, 1976 CCPA LEXIS 146
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals·Decided July 15, 1976·No. Patent Appeal No. 76-543·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

MILLER, Judge.

Senior party, Sussman,1 appeals from the decision2 of the Board of Patent Interferences awarding priority of the two counts to junior party, Cooper.3 We reverse.

The Invention

The invention comprises a display device (as shown in Fig. 1 of the Cooper patent) which illuminates an article 24 containing a design 25 positioned between the observer 26 and a light source 10.

[532] 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

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

Sussman v. Cooper, 537 F.2d 531, 190 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 418, 1976 CCPA LEXIS 146 (ccpa 1976).

537 F.2d 531 (Sussman v. Cooper) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Bode
550 F.2d 656 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1977)