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 Paul F. WILLIAMS, 1925 — 5 F.2d 1010 · caselaw · US
IP
In the Matter of the Application of Paul F. WILLIAMS
5 F.2d 1010·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit·1925
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 Paul F. WILLIAMS.
(Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.
Submitted May 12, 1925.
Decided June 1, 1925.)
Patent Appeal. No. 1747.
J. H. Milans, and C. T. Milans, both of Washington, D. C., and A. M. Belfield, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
T. A. Hostetler, of Washington, D. C., for Commissioner of Patents.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Appeal from a decision of the Patent Office rejecting claims 1 to 8 and 10 to 14, inclusive, of an application for patent covering an improvement upon appellant’s prior patent No. 831,815; the improvement consisting of a dummy or peg upon which the separable member of the pothead connector may be placed when disconnected, and a cap 'which fits either the body portion of the pothead connector or the dummy, so that the cap and the separable member are interchangeable. The Examiner disallowed all the claims then in the application. The Examiners in Chief, after considering the references, said: “The only thing which is not disclosed in the references is the idea of making the cap and the detachable element of the pothead interchangeable between the fixed element of the pothead and the dummy. If there is any invention in this, it is small; but we are disposed to give appellant the benefit of the doubt, in the absence of any reference.” They therefore allowed one claim and disallowed the others. On appeal the Assistant Commissioner affirmed the Board, “for the reasons set out in the decisions below.” Eor the same reasons, we affirm the decision of the Assistant Commissioner. Affirmed.