Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
In the Matter of the Application of Herman SCHLAICH, 1927 — 18 F.2d 1014 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
In the Matter of the Application of Herman SCHLAICH
18 F.2d 1014·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia·1927
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
In the Matter of the Application of Herman SCHLAICH.
Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.
Submitted January 14, 1927.
Decided March 7, 1927.
Patent Appeal No. 1913.
J. H. Milans and C. T. Milans, both of Washington, D. C., and E. Q. Moses, of New York City, for appellant.
T. A. Hostetler, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
[MAJORITY — ROBB, Associate Justice.]
ROBB, Associate Justice.
Appeal from a decision of the Patent Office refusing certain claims of an application for patent covering capillary tubing, apparatus for making it, and the process. This tubing is used in fluid operated measuring instruments instaEed in automobEes and airplanes, and is said to eliminate, to a marked degree; the inaccuracies and inefficiencies hitherto common to such measuring instruments.
The Examiner, in a carefuEy prepared opinion, rejected the claims involved, because, in his view, the construction therein disclosed differed in degree only from the prior art. The Board of Examiners in Chief, on appeal, again considered the contentions of apphcant and found against him, as did the Commissioner. Giving due consideration to the oral argument and brief on behalf of applicant, we are not convinced that the conclusion of the Patent Office is wrong. This is a highly technical subject-matter, with which the experts of the Patent Office are more familiar .than we, and there is no such clear showing of error as would be required to warrant us in disturbing their finding. The decision therefore is affirmed.
Affirmed.