Opinion · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Corning Glass Works v. Coe

Corning Glass Works v. Coe, 141 F.2d 550 (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1944)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1944-04-10
Topic: general

PER CURIAM. The findings and judgment of the trial court, 51 F.Supp. 232, find full support in the record. Appellant has failed to meet the burden imposed upon a plaintiff in a Section 4915 proceeding1 and is not entitled to a patent. Affirmed. 35 U.S.C.A. § 63; Abbott v. Coe, 71 App.D.C. 195, 197, 198, 109 F.2d 449, 451, 452; Daniels v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Corning Glass Works v. Coe. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 1 opinion

CORNING GLASS WORKS v. COE,141 F.2d 550(D.C. Cir. 1944)

CORNING GLASS WORKS, Appellant, v. Conway P. COE, Commissioner of Patents.

No. 8531.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Decided April 10, 1944.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.

Mr. Vernon M. Dorsey, of Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Mr. E.L. Reynolds, of Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. W.W. Cochran, Solicitor, United States Patent Office, of Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellee.

Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and MILLER, Associate Justice, and PROCTOR, Associate Justice of the District Court.

PER CURIAM.

The findings and judgment of the trial court,51 F. Supp. 232, find full support in the record. Appellant has failed to meet the burden imposed upon a plaintiff in a Section 4915 proceeding¹and is not entitled to a patent.

Affirmed.Page 551Page 713

35 U.S.C.A. § 63; Abbott v. Coe,71 App.D.C. 195,197,198,109 F.2d 449,451,452; Daniels v. Coe,73 App.D.C. 54,58,116 F.2d 941,945; Morrison v. Coe, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 219, 220,127 F.2d 737,738. ↩