Goldstein v. Marzall, Commissioner of Patents

D.C. Circuit

Goldstein v. Marzall, Commissioner of Patents

182 F.2d 694, 86 U.S. App. D.C. 393, 85 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 184, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 4208

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMay 1, 1950

Docket10234

StatusPublished

This text of 182 F.2d 694 (Goldstein v. Marzall, Commissioner of Patents) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goldstein v. Marzall, Commissioner of Patents, 182 F.2d 694, 86 U.S. App. D.C. 393, 85 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 184, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 4208 (D.C. Cir. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was denied a patent by the Patent Commissioner and, instead of appealing to the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, brought suit in the District Court under 35 U.S.C.A. § 63. His claim of invention was based upon a device consisting of a bed with an attached chest of drawers which fitted under the foot of the bed and formed part (together with a shortened spring) of the support for the mattress. The lower court ruled that the device “ * * * lacks invention in view of the Austrian patent to Mayer; that patent contains a clear teaching of the essence of plaintiff’s alleged invention, and is a valid reference.”

We hold that the decision of the lower court was in accord with the applicable authorities and that its finding was not “clearly erroneous.” See Standard Oil Development Co. v. Marzall, 86 U.S.App.D.C. — , 181 F.2d 280.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was denied a patent by the Patent Commissioner and, instead of appealing to the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, brought suit in the District Court under 35 U.S.C.A. § 63. His claim of invention was based upon a device consisting of a bed with an attached chest of drawers which fitted under the foot of the bed and formed part (together with a shortened spring) of the support for the mattress. The lower court ruled that the device “ * * * lacks invention in view of the Austrian patent to Mayer; that patent contains a clear teaching of the essence of plaintiff’s alleged invention, and is a valid reference.”

We hold that the decision of the lower court was in accord with the applicable authorities and that its finding was not “clearly erroneous.” See Standard Oil Development Co. v. Marzall, 86 U.S.App.D.C. — , 181 F.2d 280.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 F.2d 694, 86 U.S. App. D.C. 393, 85 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 184, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 4208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldstein-v-marzall-commissioner-of-patents-cadc-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack