MACFARLAND

v.

JACKSON

Citator

Cited By (20 total)

• Campbell v. B. L. Horne and wife, 147 Fla. 523 (Fla. 1941)
  …ore the bar takes effect. See Atchafalaya Land Co. v. F. B. Williams Cypress Co., 258 U. S. 190, 66 L. Ed. 559, 42 S. Ct. 284; United States v. Morena, 245 U. S. 392, 62 L. Ed. 359, 38 S. Ct. 151; MacFarland v. Jackson, 137 U. S. 258, 34 L. Ed. 664, 11 S. Ct. 79; Vance v. Vance, 108 U. S. 514, 27 L. Ed. 808, 2 S. Ct. 854; Mills v. Scott, 99 U. S. 25, 25 L. Ed. 294; Kentucky Union Co. v. Kentucky, 219 U. S. 140, 55 L. Ed. 137, 31 S. Ct. 171; Gilbert v. Ackerman, 159 N. Y. 118, 53 N. E. 735, 45 LRA 118; Osbor…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Altoona Publix Theatres, Inc. v. Am. Tri-Ergon Corp., 294 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1935)
  …decision should be. It has long been settled that a claim abandoned or rejected in the patent office with the acquiescence of the applicant cannot be revived in a re-issued patent. Yale Lock Co. v. Berkshire Bank, 135 U. S. 342, 379; Dobson v. Lees, 137 U. S. 258, 263-265. Nor can an interpretation be given the allowed claims which would revive the claims which were abandoned in order to obtain the patent. Shepard v. Carrigan, 116 U. S. 593, 597; Roemer v. Peddie, 132 U. S. 313, 317; Royer v. Coupe, 146 U. S…
• McCULLOUGH Tool Co. v. Well Surveys, Inc., 343 F.2d 381 (10th Cir. 1965)
  …s application for the original patent or, in other words, in a situation where no error through inadvertence, accident or mistake exists. Altoona Publix Theatres v. American Tri-Ergon Corp., 294 U.S. 477, 55 S.Ct. 455, 79 L.Ed. 1005; Dobson v. Lees, 137 U.S. 258, 11 S.Ct. 71, 34 L.Ed. 652. But this very same question was raised in the interference proceeding in the Patent Office and again by the Patent Examiner in the course of the ex parte proceedings on the reissue application. In both instances the rulin…