In re Keller

D.C. Circuit

In re Keller

278 F. 395, 51 App. D.C. 254, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 2744

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 6, 1922

DocketNo. 1467

StatusPublished

This text of 278 F. 395 (In re Keller) 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

In re Keller, 278 F. 395, 51 App. D.C. 254, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 2744 (D.C. Cir. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBB, Associate Justice.

This appeal is from a Patent Office decision refusing two claims for an auxiliary automobile windshield adapted to be adjusted to the side frame of an ordinary windshield, and constituting in some respects an improvement over a similar windshield shown in a patent issued to applicant. The Patent Office rejected these claims as representing obvious changes in the construction shown in the patent.

' For the reasons stated in detail by the tribunals of the Patent Office, which we need not restate here, the decision is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice HOKIÍLING, of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, sat in the place of Mr. Chief Justice SMYTPI in the hearing and determination of this appeal.

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

ROBB, Associate Justice.

This appeal is from a Patent Office decision refusing two claims for an auxiliary automobile windshield adapted to be adjusted to the side frame of an ordinary windshield, and constituting in some respects an improvement over a similar windshield shown in a patent issued to applicant. The Patent Office rejected these claims as representing obvious changes in the construction shown in the patent.

' For the reasons stated in detail by the tribunals of the Patent Office, which we need not restate here, the decision is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice HOKIÍLING, of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, sat in the place of Mr. Chief Justice SMYTPI in the hearing and determination of this appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 F. 395, 51 App. D.C. 254, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 2744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-keller-cadc-1922.