In Re Dixon

44 F.2d 881, 18 C.C.P.A. 711, 1930 CCPA LEXIS 116
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals·Decided December 1, 1930·No. Patent Appeal No. 2542·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Graham, Presiding Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court::

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, *712 as required by section 4886, K.. S. 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., 160 Fed. 467; Berardini v. Tocci, 200 Fed. 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.

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

In Re Dixon, 44 F.2d 881, 18 C.C.P.A. 711, 1930 CCPA LEXIS 116 (ccpa 1930).

44 F.2d 881 (In Re Dixon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Patton
127 F.2d 324 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1942)
Latz v. Reliance Graphic Corp.
98 F.2d 679 (Second Circuit, 1938)
In Re Sterling
70 F.2d 910 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1934)
In Re McKee
64 F.2d 379 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1933)
In Re Reeves
62 F.2d 199 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1932)
In Re Russell
48 F.2d 668 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1931)