Peterson v. Marzall

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Feb. 21, 1952.

Decided March 13, 1952.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1952-03-13

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1952

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1952-03-13

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Joseph N. Nielsen, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

¶2H. S. Miller, United States Patent Office, Washington, D. C., with whom E. L. Reynolds, Solicitor, United States Patent Office, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.

¶3Before EDGERTON, PROCTOR, and BAZELON, Circuit Judges.

¶4 *779PER CURIAM.

¶5This is a suit under 35 U.S.C.A. § 63, R.S. § 4915, for a patent on an electrically insulating layer structure such as a floor rug. We see no reason to disturb the finding of the Patent Office and the District Court that the claims fail to show invention over the patents cited by appellee.

¶6Affirmed.

Download

Copy

Embed on your site

Hover to preview · click to copy the code

Search Wikipedia →

Court

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Panel

David L. Bazelon
Chief Judge
Henry White Edgerton
Chief Judge
James McPherson Proctor
Circuit Judge
PER CURIAM.
By the court
Read opinion →

Counsel

Joseph N. Nielsen, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

H. S. Miller, United States Patent Office, Washington, D. C., with whom E. L. Reynolds, Solicitor, United States Patent Office, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.