Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

245 F.2d 279

Docket No. 13612.

Docket No. 13613.

Keating v. Watson

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued May 16, 1957.

Decided June 13, 1957.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1957-06-13

2 counsel of record

Relies on 145 F. Supp. 191 - Keating v. Watson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1957-06-13

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently January 1981

6 federal appellate ·

201957196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. William E. Lucas, Chicago, Ill., of the bar of the Supreme Court of Illinois, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, with whom Mr. William L. Mathis, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant. Mr. J. Preston Swecker, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellant.

Mr. Joseph Schimmel, Atty., U. S. Patent Office, with whom Mr. Clarence W. Moore, Solicitor, U. S. Patent Office, was on the brief, for appellee. Mr. H. S. Miller (now deceased), Atty., U. S. Patent Office, also entered an appearance for appellee.

Before BAZELON, WASHINGTON and BURGER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

These appeals are from the District Court's dismissal of appellant's two suits against the Commissioner of Patents, under 35 U.S.C. § 145, seeking issuance of two patents. We agree with the opinion below, D.D.C.1956, 145 F.Supp. 191, that none of the claims define anything inventive over the prior art.

¶2

Affirmed.

/245/f2d/279 · .json · Public domain