In re Dixon

44 F.2d 881
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedDecember 1, 1930
DocketPatent Appeal No. 2542
StatusPublished

This text of 44 F.2d 881 (In re Dixon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Customs and Patent Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Dixon, 44 F.2d 881 (ccpa 1930).

Opinion

GRAHAM, Presiding Judge.

The appellant has prepared a form of a promissory judgment note with attorney’s fee clause, and a declaration of lien written therein, and seeks to patent it under application, serial No. 123,682, filed July 20, 1926. Both the Examiner and the Board of Appeals rejected the application on the ground that the alleged invention did not constitute a new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvements thereof, as required by section 4886, Rev. St. (35 USCA § 31). We are in entire accord with the decisions of the Patent Office tribunals. The law is well settled by Hotel Security, etc., v. Lorraine Co (C. C. A.) 160 F. 467, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 665; Berardini v. Tocci (C. C. A.) 200 F. 1021; Moore v. United States, 50 Ct. Cl. 120; In re Moeser, 27 App. D. C. 307.

The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Moore v. United States
50 Ct. Cl. 120 (Court of Claims, 1915)
Hotel Security Checking Co. v. Lorraine Co.
160 F. 467 (Second Circuit, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
44 F.2d 881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-dixon-ccpa-1930.