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 Morris P. HOLMES, 1928 — 24 F.2d 1013 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
In the Matter of the Application of Morris P. HOLMES
24 F.2d 1013·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit·1928
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 Morris P. HOLMES.
Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted March 13, 1928.
Decided April 2, 1928.
No. 2042.
L. A. Maxson, of Claremont, N. H., 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 Patent Office decision refusing to allow claims in appellant’s application for a patent involving a device comprising a compound reduction gearing, having means for supplying motive fluid to the meshing teeth of each gear to form a motor.
The case was pending in the Patent Office more than eight years and was very carefully considered by the various tribunals, each writing an opinion. After an adverse decision by the Board of Examiners in Chief, appellant canceled all the rejected claims and substituted others, which the Board refused to consider. On Appeal to the Commissioner, he ruled that “while these claims should have been presented to the examiner in order that his opinion as to them should be before the appellate tribunals, yet in view of the history of the case, these claims will be admitted and here considered.” After full consideration, the Commissioner disallowed, the substituted claims.
We have carefully examined the Commissioner’s decision in the light of appellant’s argument and brief, and are convinced of its correctness. We therefore affirm the decision, without a restatement of reasons. Af.firmed.