Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 13945.

Attorney(S)

Mr. James M. Parker, Chicago,
, of the bar of the Supreme Court of Illinois, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, with whom
Edward B. Beale
George R. Jones, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for
Mr. Joseph Schimmel, Attorney, United States Patent Office, with whom Mr. Clarence W. Moore, Solicitor, United States Patent Office, was on the brief, for

Judges

Wilbur Kingsbury Miller
David L. Bazelon

Acts

Patents — Review Of Patent And Trademark Office Decisions — Patentability Of Inventions And Grant Of Patents — Civil Action To Obtain Patent

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Shell Development Company v. Robert C. Watson, Commissioner of Patents

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from a suit under 35 U.S.C. § 145 in which the United States District Court for the District of Columbia upheld the Patent Office's refusal to grant appellant's patent application. The District Court's opinion is reported at 1957, 149 F. Supp. 279. Appellant Shell Development Company appealed the District Court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The appeal was argued December 16, 1957, and decided March 6, 1958. The District Court judge was Edward M. Curran. Counsel for appellant included James M. Parker (pro hac vice), Edward B. Beale, and George R. Jones; counsel for appellee included Joseph Schimmel and Clarence W. Moore. The panel consisted of Circuit Judges Wilbur K. Miller, Bazelon, and Burger.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Patent Office's refusal to grant appellant's patent application should be reversed on review under 35 U.S.C. § 145.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
1957, 149 F. Supp. 279	The District Court opinion containing a full description of the issues in the case.	The Court of Appeals stated it found no basis for disturbing the conclusions reached in that opinion and affirmed the District Court.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The per curiam opinion states that the District Court thoroughly described the issues in its 149 F. Supp. 279 opinion. Upon review, the Court of Appeals found no basis for disturbing the District Court's conclusions and thus did not undertake further independent analysis in the published opinion. The case was decided on that basis.

Holding and Implications

AFFIRMED.

Direct effect: The District Court judgment upholding the Patent Office's refusal to grant appellant's patent application is affirmed, leaving the Patent Office's refusal in place. The opinion does not discuss broader legal implications or establish a new precedent beyond affirming the lower court's conclusions.

Show full summary ...

SHELL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, doing business at Emery v. lle, California, Appellant,

PER CURIAM.

In this suit under 35 U.S.C. § 145, the District Court upheld the Patent Office in its refusal to grant appellant's application for a patent. The issues are fully described in an opinion by the District Court, 1957, 149 F. Supp. 279, and we find no basis for disturbing the conclusions reached therein.

Affirmed.

SHELL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. WATSON