John P. O'Brien v. Robert C. Watson. Commissioner of Patents

D.C. Circuit

John P. O'Brien v. Robert C. Watson. Commissioner of Patents

262 F.2d 718, 104 U.S. App. D.C. 407

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 18, 1958

Docket14379

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 262 F.2d 718 (John P. O'Brien v. Robert C. Watson. Commissioner of Patents) 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

John P. O'Brien v. Robert C. Watson. Commissioner of Patents, 262 F.2d 718, 104 U.S. App. D.C. 407 (D.C. Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a patent case, under Section 145 of Title 35 U.S.Code (1952), 35 U.S. C.A. § 145. The Patent Office and District Court both found lack of invention over the prior art. On the record before us, we cannot say that either the Patent Office or the District Court erred. It may well be true, as plaintiff-appellant argues, that he has made a useful contribution to the art of die making. But the essence of any such contribution, as expressed in his brief and argument, is not reflected in the language of his formal claims, 1 or in any proof offered to the District Court.

Affirmed.

1

. See claims 18 and 19 of patent application filed November 29, 1947, Serial No. 788,835.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a patent case, under Section 145 of Title 35 U.S.Code (1952), 35 U.S. C.A. § 145. The Patent Office and District Court both found lack of invention over the prior art. On the record before us, we cannot say that either the Patent Office or the District Court erred. It may well be true, as plaintiff-appellant argues, that he has made a useful contribution to the art of die making. But the essence of any such contribution, as expressed in his brief and argument, is not reflected in the language of his formal claims, 1 or in any proof offered to the District Court.

Affirmed.

1

. See claims 18 and 19 of patent application filed November 29, 1947, Serial No. 788,835.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 F.2d 718, 104 U.S. App. D.C. 407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-p-obrien-v-robert-c-watson-commissioner-of-patents-cadc-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack