In re Wilson

D.C. Circuit

In re Wilson

8 F.2d 1016, 56 App. D.C. 400, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 3441

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 7, 1925

DocketPatent Appeal No. 1753

StatusPublished

This text of 8 F.2d 1016 (In re Wilson) 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 Wilson, 8 F.2d 1016, 56 App. D.C. 400, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 3441 (D.C. Cir. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a decision 'of the Patent Office refusing the claims of an application for patent on a method of, blowing off boilers, so as to preclude or minimize the shock and consequent damage.

The three tribunals of the Patent Office have analyzed with painstaking care the claims involved, with reference to the prior art, and each has reached the conclusion that the applicant has made no patentable advance over that art. We have read the very comprehensive brief of appellant’s counsel, in the light of his oral argument, but have found no error in the reasoning or conclusion of the tribunals of the Patent Office. We therefore affirm the decision from which this appeal was taken.

Affirmed.

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

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a decision 'of the Patent Office refusing the claims of an application for patent on a method of, blowing off boilers, so as to preclude or minimize the shock and consequent damage.

The three tribunals of the Patent Office have analyzed with painstaking care the claims involved, with reference to the prior art, and each has reached the conclusion that the applicant has made no patentable advance over that art. We have read the very comprehensive brief of appellant’s counsel, in the light of his oral argument, but have found no error in the reasoning or conclusion of the tribunals of the Patent Office. We therefore affirm the decision from which this appeal was taken.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 F.2d 1016, 56 App. D.C. 400, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 3441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-wilson-cadc-1925.