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.
IP
In the Matter of the Application of Adelbert E. BRONSON
10 F.2d 1014·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia·1926
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and YAN 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 Adelbert E. BRONSON.
(Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted January 19, 1926.
Decided February 1, 1926.)
No. 1819.
Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
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 YAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
[MAJORITY — VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.]
VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, rejecting appellant’s application for a patent for a valve mechanism intended for use in pneumatic tires.
The references cited in the opinion of the Commissioner are conclusive, since the claims of appellant can be read directly thereon. The decision of the Assistant Commissioner disposes of the ease in accord with our views, and it is accordingly affirmed.