Robert C. Switzer v. Robert C. Watson, Commissioner of Patents

251 F.2d 386, 102 U.S. App. D.C. 145
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedJanuary 9, 1958
Docket13948
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 251 F.2d 386 (Robert C. Switzer 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
Robert C. Switzer v. Robert C. Watson, Commissioner of Patents, 251 F.2d 386, 102 U.S. App. D.C. 145 (D.C. Cir. 1958).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court denying, after a trial de novo under 35 U.S.C. § 145, patentability of a visible penetrant method of non-destructive testing, a method by which the existence and location of minute cracks and flaws may be readily detected. The ground for the denial in the District Court was that the subject matter of the claims was nonpatentable over prior art and patents, and, in the case of one of the claims (No. 11), unpatentable on the ground of double patenting. The Primary Examiner and the Board of Patent Appeals had reached the same conclusion. 1

An examination of the record discloses, no error which would warrant disturbing the findings of the District Court. See Standard Oil Development Co. v. Marzall, 1950, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 210, 181 F.2d 280; Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Sun Oil Co., 1956, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 154, 229 F.2d 37.

Affirmed.

1

. Cf. Application of Ward, Cust. & Pat.App.1956, 236 F.2d 428.

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

Related

Switzer v. Watson
183 F. Supp. 467 (District of Columbia, 1960)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
251 F.2d 386, 102 U.S. App. D.C. 145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-c-switzer-v-robert-c-watson-commissioner-of-patents-cadc-1958.