Josserand v. Coe

District of Columbia

Josserand v. Coe

58 F. Supp. 578, 63 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 218, 1944 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1616

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedMarch 20, 1944

DocketCiv. A. No. 20227

StatusPublished

This text of 58 F. Supp. 578 (Josserand v. Coe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Josserand v. Coe, 58 F. Supp. 578, 63 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 218, 1944 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1616 (D.D.C. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

BAILEY, Justice.

The plaintiff seeks to have the court authorize the Commissioner of Patents to issue to him a patent containing certain claims set out in the complaint, these claims being sought in his application for a reissue of his patent No. 311,064. These claims relate to “drive-in” theatres of a type so constructed as to permit patrons to drive their automobiles into parking places and observe the performance while seated in their cars. Claim 8 has been rejected by the defendant on the ground that it is not properly supported by the applicant’s disclosure. The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals so held in an interference case and I agree with the Patent Office in holding that this question is res judicata, but whether the opinion of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals forecloses that question or not, I agree with the conclusions reached by that court.

The remaining claims were rejected by the defendant as unpatentable for the reason that they were similar to or broader than claims which the plaintiff canceled during the prosecution of the application on which the plaintiff’s patent was granted. While the plaintiff attempts to show that the instant claims are different or less broad than the canceled claims, I agree with the decision of the Board of Appeals of the Patent Office in denying the claims in suit.

The complaint will be dismissed with costs.

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

BAILEY, Justice.

The plaintiff seeks to have the court authorize the Commissioner of Patents to issue to him a patent containing certain claims set out in the complaint, these claims being sought in his application for a reissue of his patent No. 311,064. These claims relate to “drive-in” theatres of a type so constructed as to permit patrons to drive their automobiles into parking places and observe the performance while seated in their cars. Claim 8 has been rejected by the defendant on the ground that it is not properly supported by the applicant’s disclosure. The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals so held in an interference case and I agree with the Patent Office in holding that this question is res judicata, but whether the opinion of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals forecloses that question or not, I agree with the conclusions reached by that court.

The remaining claims were rejected by the defendant as unpatentable for the reason that they were similar to or broader than claims which the plaintiff canceled during the prosecution of the application on which the plaintiff’s patent was granted. While the plaintiff attempts to show that the instant claims are different or less broad than the canceled claims, I agree with the decision of the Board of Appeals of the Patent Office in denying the claims in suit.

The complaint will be dismissed with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 F. Supp. 578, 63 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 218, 1944 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/josserand-v-coe-dcd-1944.