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

Shell Development Co. v. Watson

252 F.2d 861

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1958-03-06
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. In this suit under 35 U.S.C. § 145, the District Court upheld the Patent Office in its refusal to grant appellant’s application for a patent. The issues are fully described in an opinion by the District Court, 1957, 149 F.Supp. 279, and we find no basis for disturbing the conclusions reached therein. Affirmed.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Shell Development Co. v. Watson. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
2 opinions
SHELL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. WATSON,252 F.2d 861(D.C. Cir. 1958)
SHELL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, doing business at
Emeryville, California, Appellant, v. Robert C. WATSON, Commissioner of
Patents, Appellee.
No. 13945.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued December 16, 1957.
Decided March 6, 1958.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia; Edward M. Curran, Judge.
Mr. James M. Parker, Chicago, Ill., of the bar of the Supreme Court of Illinois, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, with whom Messrs. Edward B. Beale and George R. Jones, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. Joseph Schimmel, Attorney, United States Patent Office, with whom Mr. Clarence W. Moore, Solicitor, United States Patent Office, was on the brief, for appellee.
Before WILBUR K. MILLER, BAZELON and BURGER, Circuit Judges.Page 862
PER CURIAM.
In this suit under35 U.S.C. § 145, the District Court upheld the Patent Office in its refusal to grant appellant's application for a patent. The issues are fully described in an opinion by the District Court, 1957,149 F. Supp. 279, and we find no basis for disturbing the conclusions reached therein.

Affirmed.