Cupples v. Watson, Commissioner of Patents

204 F.2d 58, 97 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 1, 92 U.S. App. D.C. 166, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 4336
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided March 26, 1953·No. 11401_1·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks to require appellee, the Commissioner of Patents, to admit him to practice before the Patent Office despite his failure to pass an examination. The trial judge thought it his duty, among other things, to read the examination questions and appellant’s answers to them and to review the grading of these answers to the extent of determining that “by reasonable tests, the officials of the Patent Office acted fairly and without discrimination in the grading of the plaintiff’s examination, pursuant to a uniform standard, that the plaintiff failed to pass the required examination,” etc. Cupples v. Marzall, D.C., 101 F.Supp. 579, 583. We need not decide whether in our opinion this kind of review of the examination was necessary. In all other respects we agree with the'opinion of the District Court

Affirmed.

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

Cupples v. Watson, Commissioner of Patents, 204 F.2d 58, 97 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 1, 92 U.S. App. D.C. 166, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 4336 (D.C. Cir. 1953).

204 F.2d 58 (Cupples v. Watson, Commissioner of Patents) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Worley v. United States Patent & Trademark Office
121 F. Supp. 2d 107 (District of Columbia, 2000)
Leeds v. Mosbacher
732 F. Supp. 198 (District of Columbia, 1990)
Klein v. Peterson
696 F. Supp. 695 (District of Columbia, 1988)
Slater v. Quigg
647 F. Supp. 8 (District of Columbia, 1986)
Application of Peterson
499 P.2d 304 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1972)