IP
In re BRONSON
10 F.2d 1015·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia·1926
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 re BRONSON.
(Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted January 19, 1926.
Decided February 1, 1926.)
No. 1820.
Patents <§=>20.
Increasing number of sides on cap for tire valve does not,constitute invention.
Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
In the matter of application of Adelbert E. Bronson for patent. Prom a decision rejecting his application, the applicant appeals.
Affirmed.
W. T. Estabrook, of Washington, D. C., and A. J. Hudson, of Cleveland, Ohio, 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 — VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.]
VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.
Appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, rejecting appellant’s application for a design patent for a dust cap for tire valves. The advance in the art claimed consists merely in the increase in the number of sides on the cap.
We agree with the holding of the Commissioner that this does not constitute invention, and in view of the numerous citations of existing patents, anticipating appellant’s device, the decision of the Assistant Commissioner is right, and is affirmed.