1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 304 F.2d
  5. 304 F.2d 630 (1962)
 

COMMONWEALTH ENGINEERING COMPANY OF OHIO v. LADD

No. 16862.

304 F.2d 630 (1962)

The COMMONWEALTH ENGINEERING COMPANY OF OHIO and Carl Berger, Appellants, v. David L. LADD, Commissioner of Patents, Appellee.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Decided May 31, 1962

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Mr. Folsom E. Drummond, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Harry A. Toulmin, Jr., Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellants.

Mr. J. E. Armore, Atty., with whom Mr. Clarence W. Moore, Solicitor, U. S. Patent Office, was on the brief, for appellee.

Before WILBUR K. MILLER, Chief Judge, and BURGER and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from the denial of a patent application is wholly without merit. The trial judge, in a de novo proceeding, patiently afforded appellants every opportunity to develop their case. But they failed to show that their frozen blood thawing process would produce the result claimed or be otherwise useful. Accordingly, we affirm on the opinion of the District Court. Commonwealth Engineering Co. v. Ladd, D. D.C., 199 F.Supp. 51

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases