TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Dennis J. Denen v. Kenneth G. Buss and Norman Culp

Dennis J. DENEN, Appellant, v. Kenneth G. BUSS and Norman Culp, Appellees

Denen v. Buss, 801 F.2d 385 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
September 16, 1986
Docket
No. 86-880
Judges
Markey, Baldwin, Miller
Citations
801 F.2d 385231 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 1591986 U.S. App. LEXIS 20343

Opinion — Baldwin

BALDWIN, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal of the December 5,1985 decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (board) awarding priority to the senior party, Kenneth G. Buss and Norman Culp (Buss, et al.) in patent interference No. 101,099. We affirm.

Background An interference was provoked by Dennis Jr Denen (Denen) upon his application, Serial No. 285,628, with respect to claims 1-4, 6-10, and 13-15 of U.S. Patent No. 4,346, -265 issued to Buss, et al. The invention concerns a ringer circuit for telephones.

The board considered the activity of De-nen directed toward conception and actual reduction to practice and found that Denen did not sustain his burden to overcome the filing date of Buss, et al. The board awarded priority to Buss, et al. based on an absence of evidence that Denen possessed the complete invention at the times critical to establishing priority. The board rejected, as well, Denen’s contention of derivation by Buss, et al.

OPINION In considering the correctness of the decision, we note that any underlying facts found by the board must be reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.

Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 356, 361 , 224 USPQ 857, 859, 863 (Fed.Cir.1985).

See also DeGeorge v. Bernier, 768 F.2d 1318, 1324 (Fed.Cir.1985), Lacotte v. Thomas, 758 F.2d 611, 613 , 225 USPQ 633, 634 (Fed.Cir.1985). Upon consideration of the arguments on appeal, we are not persuaded that the findings underlying the board’s decision on priority are clearly erroneous. We find no error in the board’s conclusion that prior possession by Buss, et al. vitiates argument that the invention was derived from Denen.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the board.

AFFIRMED.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1988: 11992: 119882026peak 1988 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 90
Lacotte v. Thomas, 758 F.2d 611 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 7
Degeorge v. Bernier, 768 F.2d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 68

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list