Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

294 F.2d 231

Docket No. 16225.

Sanders v. Ladd

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued May 5, 1961.

Decided June 29, 1961.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1961-06-29

2 counsel of record

Relies on Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation · Helvering v. Gowran · Schafer v. Watson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1961-06-29

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently March 1998

13 federal appellate ·

501961197019801990decided

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. Edwin T. Bean, Jr., Buffalo, N. Y., with whom Mr. Franklin D. Wolffe, Washington, D. C., was on the brief for appellant.

Mr. Raymond E. Martin, Attorney, United States Patent Office, with whom Mr. Clarence W. Moore, Solicitor, United States Patent Office, was on the brief for appellee.

Before EDGERTON, WASHINGTON and BURGER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

This is a patent case, under 35 U.S.C. § 145. Plaintiff-appellant's application, Serial No. 333,147, covered a marked pharmaceutical tablet and the process of marking such a tablet. Though the plaintiff seems to have met a business need, and his process has achieved financial success, we are not convinced that the Patent Office and the District Court were wrong in holding that the application did not disclose patentable invention over the prior art. See Schafer v. Watson, 1961, 109 U.S.App.D.C. 360, 288 F.2d 144.

¶2

Affirmed.

/294/f2d/231 · .json · Public domain