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 Charles W. LOTZ, 1927 — 17 F.2d 1008 · caselaw · US
IP
In the Matter of the Application of Charles W. LOTZ
17 F.2d 1008·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit·1927
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, ROBB, Associate Justice, and GRAHAM, Presiding Judge United States Court of Customs Appeals.
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 Charles W. LOTZ.
(Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.
Submitted Jan. 18, 1927.
Decided March 7, 1927.)
No. 1917.
A. L. Lawrence, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.
T. A. Hostetler, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, ROBB, Associate Justice, and GRAHAM, Presiding Judge United States Court of Customs Appeals.
[MAJORITY — ROBB, J.]
ROBB, J.
Appeal from a decision of the Patent Office tribunals refusing certain claims of an application for patent covering a process for burning pulverized coal. We have carefully reviewed the decisions of the tribunals below, in connection with the brief and argument of counsel for appellant, and, finding no error, affirm the decision from which this appeal was taken. .
Affirmed.