The Commonwealth Engineering Company of Ohio and Carl Berger v. David L. Ladd, Commissioner of Patents
This text of 304 F.2d 630 (The Commonwealth Engineering Company of Ohio and Carl Berger 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.
Opinion
This appeal from the denial of a patent application is wholly without merit. The trial judge, in a de novo proceeding, patiently afforded appellants every opportunity to develop their case. But they failed to show that their frozen blood thawing process would produce the result claimed or be otherwise useful. Accordingly, we affirm on the opinion of the District Court. Commonwealth Engineering Co. v. Ladd, D. D.C., 199 F.Supp. 51.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
304 F.2d 630, 113 U.S. App. D.C. 53, 133 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 618, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4955, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-commonwealth-engineering-company-of-ohio-and-carl-berger-v-david-l-cadc-1962.