ADAMS

v.

CALIFORNIA ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (13 total)

• Amstar Corp. v. Envirotech Corp. & Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., 730 F.2d 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
  …sregarding the patent rights of others, as reflected in its being held in contempt of court four times in a patent case, Peterson Filters & Engineering Co. v. Eimco Corp., 155 USPQ 89 (D.Utah 1967), aff'd, 406 F. 2d 431 (10th Cir.1968), cert. denied 395 U.S. 963, 89 S.Ct. 2105, 23 L.Ed.2d 749 (1969); 166 USPQ 425 (D.Utah 1970); 174 USPQ 185 (D.Utah 1972); 178 USPQ 337 (D.Utah 1973), that policy is not before us. Envirotech’s approach to the patent system and its disregard of plaintiff's patent rights and co…
• Flour City Architectural Metals v. Alpana Aluminum Prods., Inc., 454 F.2d 98 (8th Cir. 1972)
  …Circuit: Continental Can Co. v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., 415 F. 2d 601 (10th Cir. 1969), cert, denied, 397 U.S. 914, 90 S.Ct. 916, 25 L.Ed.2d 94 (1970); Eimco Corp. v. Peterson Filters and Engineering Co., 406 F. 2d 431 (10th Cir. 1968), cert, denied, 395 U.S. 963, 89 S.Ct. 2105, 23 L.Ed.2d 749 (1969); Griswold v. Oil Capital Valve Co., 375 F. 2d 532 (10th Cir. 1966). . Although we recognize that the term “invention” carries diverse meanings, we use the term in part III to refer to the jjatented device. See,…
• Ellipse Corp. v. Ford Motor Co., 452 F.2d 163 (7th Cir. 1971)
  …ication of the doctrine is limited to changes made to overcome rejections by the Patent Office because the claim was anticipated by the prior art, Eimco Corp. v. Peterson Filters and Engineering Co., 406 F. 2d 431, 438 (10th Cir. 1968), cert. denied 395 U.S. 963, 89 S.Ct. 2105, 23 L.Ed.2d 749. It will not apply where changes in the claim are directed to merely overcoming difficulties in particular wording or indefiniteness, Eimco, supra; Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Jones, 308 F. 2d 705, 708-709 (10th Cir. 1962)…