Sinclair Refining Co. v. Coe

142 F.2d 569, 79 U.S. App. D.C. 57, 61 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 545, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3453

• Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
• Decided: May 1, 1944
• Docket: No. 8479
• Status: Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Even assuming, although not deciding, that this proceeding was properly brought under Section 4915, R.S.,¹ we are satisfied, nevertheless, that the disputed claims were unpatentable over the prior art; hence that they were properly rejected by the Patent Office and by the District Court.²

Affirmed.

1 Hemphill Co. v. Coe, 74 App.D.C. 123, 124, 121 F.2d 897, 898: “Under Section 4915, an appeal from a decision of the Patent Office (Board of Appeals) to the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals precludes later maintenance of a bill in equity upon the same application. The remedies are alternative and mutually exclusive * * *. The remedy elected is conclusive of the issues raised and of those which might have been raised. A party therefore by filing a second application cannot obtain a review of questions which were, or might have been, determined on a review relating to the first.”

2 Abbott v. Coe, 71 App.D.C. 195, 197, 198, 109 F.2d 449, 451, 452; Daniels v. Coe, 73 App.D.C. 54, 58, 116 F.2d 941, 945; Morrison v. Coe, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 219, 220, 127 F.2d 737, 738.