Gould v. Hellwarth
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
472 F.2d 1383 (1973)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Gould (appellant) and Hellwarth (respondent) both filed patent applications claiming a type of laser, with Gould having filed more than two years before Hellwarth. During an interference proceeding before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI), it was determined that Gould’s application failed to satisfy the enablement requirement under 35 U.S.C. §112, which requires that a patent application teach one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention. Because Gould’s application did not support the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. §112, priority was awarded to Hellwarth. Gould appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lane, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.