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 Francis Norwood BARD, 1927 — 18 F.2d 190 · caselaw · US
IP
In the Matter of the Application of Francis Norwood BARD
18 F.2d 190·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia·1927
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Assoeiaté 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 Francis Norwood BARD.
(Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted January 12, 1927.
Decided March 7, 1927.)
No. 1899.
Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
Paul Carpenter and B. J. McCann, both of Chicago, Ill., J. T. Basseches, of New York City, and J. H. McCann, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
T. A. Hostetler, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Assoeiaté Justices.
[MAJORITY — MARTIN, Chief Justice.]
MARTIN, Chief Justice.
This is an appeal from concurrent decisions of the tribunals of the Patent Office, rejecting all of the 24 claims of the appellant’s application for a patent.
This case was argued and submitted concurrently with No. 1814,-App. D. C.-18 F.(2d) 189, this day decided by us;*the same person being appellant- in both cases, and the issues in both being similar in substance. It is only necessary for .us here to say that, consistently with our conclusion in that case, we affirm the decision of the Commissioner of Patents herein.