Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google
Scholar
on the Web
Google Web
Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web
Search
in the News
Google News
Search
Google
News Archive Search
Yahoo!
News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog
Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book
Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Purdue Research Foundation, Appellant, v. Robert C. Watson, Commissioner of Patents, Appellee
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit. - 265 F.2d 107
Argued Feb. 26, 1959.Decided March 19, 1959
Mr. Dean Laurence, Jackson, Miss., of the bar of the Supreme Court of Mississippi, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. Herbert I. Sherman, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. Arthur H. Behrens, Atty., U.S. Patent Office, with whom Mr. Clarence W. Moore, Solicitor, U.S. Patent Office, was on the brief, for appellee.
Before EDGERTON, WASHINGTON, and DANAHER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
In this suit under 35 U.S.C. 145 to obtain a patent, the District Court upheld the Patent Office in rejecting appellant's chemical claims on the ground that they failed to define the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112. We find no error. Koebel v. Coe, 70 App.D.C. 261, 105 F.2d 784; Watson v. Bersworth, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 187, 251, F.2d 898. Appellant asks us to notice certain claims which the Patent Office allowed to others, on February 25, 1958, Re. 24,435. However, those claims are more definite than the claims to which the present appeal relates.
Affirmed.
DANAHER, Circuit Judge (concurring).
I deem myself bound to concur because of Watson v. Bersworth, supra, but see the dissent therein.