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 re FORSYTH, 1927 — 17 F.2d 688 · caselaw · US
IP
In re FORSYTH
17 F.2d 688·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit·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 re FORSYTH.
(Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted January 10, 1927.
Decided February 7, 1927.)
No. 1878.
Patents <@=66(4) — Applicant for patent for ornamental design for disk wheel held barred by existing patents, if not anticipated by prior art.
Applicant for patent for ornamental design for disk wheel held completely barred by existing patents cited by Commissioner, if not anticipated by prior disclosures in the art.
Appeal from Commissioner of Patents.
In the matter of the application of George H. Forsyth for patent. From a decision of the Commissioner of Patents, denying application, applicant appeals.
Affirmed.
L. T. Greist, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
T. A. Hostetler, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
• Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
[MAJORITY — VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.]
VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.
Appellant was denied a .patent on a claim for an ornamental design for a disk wheel, and accordingly this appeal was taken.
We deem it unnecessary to consider the case at length, as we are clearly of the opinion that, if appellant’s design would be patentable, in the absence of anticipation by the disclosures of the prior art, he is completely barred by existing patents cited in the decisions of the tribunals below.
The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed: