Opinion

In Re Dixon

  • 44 F.2d 881
  • 18 C.C.P.A. 711
  • 1930 CCPA LEXIS 116
Court
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Filed
Dec 1, 1930
Status
Published
Author
Graham
On the bench
Graham, Bland, Hatfield, Garrett, Lenroot
Cited by
6 cases
Authority
More cited than 83.8%

The opinion

Graham, Presiding Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court::

The appellant has prepared a form of a promissory judgment note with attorney’s fee clause, and a declaration of lien written therein, and seeks to patent it under application, serial No. 123,682, filed July 20, 1926. Both the examiner and the Board of Appeals rejected the application on the ground that the alleged invention did not constitute a new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvements thereof,

*712

as required by section 4886, K.. S. We are in entire accord with the decisions of the Patent Office tribunals. The law is well settled by

Hotel Security, etc.,

v.

Lorraine Co.,

160 Fed. 467 ;

Berardini

v.

Tocci,

200 Fed. 1021 ;

Moore

v.

United States,

50 Ct. Cl. 120 ;

In re

Moeser, 27 App. D. C. 307.

The decision of the Board of Appeals is

affirmed.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.