In re Murray

D.C. Circuit

In re Murray

269 F. 1020, 50 App. D.C. 401, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1933

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 6, 1920

DocketNo. 1332

StatusPublished

This text of 269 F. 1020 (In re Murray) 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 Murray, 269 F. 1020, 50 App. D.C. 401, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1933 (D.C. Cir. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, denying him a patent for certain improvements in the construction of rubber tires. We agree with the unanimous opinions of the tribunals below in holding that nothing patentable is disclosed over the prior art. The decision of the Commissioner of Patents is affirmed, and the clerk is directed to certify these proceedings as by law required. Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, denying him a patent for certain improvements in the construction of rubber tires. We agree with the unanimous opinions of the tribunals below in holding that nothing patentable is disclosed over the prior art. The decision of the Commissioner of Patents is affirmed, and the clerk is directed to certify these proceedings as by law required. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 F. 1020, 50 App. D.C. 401, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1933, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-murray-cadc-1920.