Sheldon L. Pollack v. David L. Ladd, Commissioner of Patents

D.C. Circuit

Sheldon L. Pollack v. David L. Ladd, Commissioner of Patents

346 F.2d 799, 145 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 115, 120 U.S. App. D.C. 318, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5955

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 8, 1965

Docket18801_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 346 F.2d 799 (Sheldon L. Pollack v. David L. Ladd, 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

Sheldon L. Pollack v. David L. Ladd, Commissioner of Patents, 346 F.2d 799, 145 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 115, 120 U.S. App. D.C. 318, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5955 (D.C. Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

DANAHER, Circuit Judge.

After adverse rulings by the tribunals of the Patent Office, the appellants here asked the District Court to authorize the Commissioner to issue a patent on their application, serial No. 825, 124. Particularly involved were the appellants’ Claim 17 respecting a method of erection of a high-strength grout-filled metal-reinforced brick wall and Claim 18 describing a relatively inexpensive wall constructed in accordance with the method of Claim 17. After the de novo trial authorized by 35 U.S.C. § 145 (1965), the District Judge rendered an opinion pursuant to which judgment was entered for the Commissioner.

The experienced and able trial judge concluded that each of the claims at issue was directly readable upon prior art. Our examination of the entire record has persuaded us that we are bound to affirm.

There is no question that the appellants taught an improved method of erecting a highly useful grout-filled monolithic building wall. The results in actual use were seen to be excellent, indeed the evidence showed a high degree of commercial success. Important though such factors may be in a close case, of themselves they do not establish patentability. The trial judge reasonably could have concluded that there simply was an inadequate showing of invention.

We are bound to affirm. 1

1

. Standard Oil Development Co. v. Marzall, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 210, 214, 181 F.2d 280, 284 (1950); cf. L-O-F Glass Fibers Company v. Watson, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 69, 76, 228 F.2d 40, 47 (1955).

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

DANAHER, Circuit Judge.

After adverse rulings by the tribunals of the Patent Office, the appellants here asked the District Court to authorize the Commissioner to issue a patent on their application, serial No. 825, 124. Particularly involved were the appellants’ Claim 17 respecting a method of erection of a high-strength grout-filled metal-reinforced brick wall and Claim 18 describing a relatively inexpensive wall constructed in accordance with the method of Claim 17. After the de novo trial authorized by 35 U.S.C. § 145 (1965), the District Judge rendered an opinion pursuant to which judgment was entered for the Commissioner.

The experienced and able trial judge concluded that each of the claims at issue was directly readable upon prior art. Our examination of the entire record has persuaded us that we are bound to affirm.

There is no question that the appellants taught an improved method of erecting a highly useful grout-filled monolithic building wall. The results in actual use were seen to be excellent, indeed the evidence showed a high degree of commercial success. Important though such factors may be in a close case, of themselves they do not establish patentability. The trial judge reasonably could have concluded that there simply was an inadequate showing of invention.

We are bound to affirm. 1

1

. Standard Oil Development Co. v. Marzall, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 210, 214, 181 F.2d 280, 284 (1950); cf. L-O-F Glass Fibers Company v. Watson, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 69, 76, 228 F.2d 40, 47 (1955).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

346 F.2d 799, 145 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 115, 120 U.S. App. D.C. 318, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5955, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheldon-l-pollack-v-david-l-ladd-commissioner-of-patents-cadc-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack