SMITH v. OOMS

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Report a problem

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 9399.

Attorney(S)

Mr. Lester B. Clark, of Houston,
, with whom Mr. Emmett Leo Sheehan, of Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for
Mr. Edwin L. Reynolds, United States Patent Office, of Washington, D.C., with whom
W.W. Cochran, Solicitor, United States Patent Office,
Howard S. Miller, both of Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for

Judges

Are you a practicing lawyer?

Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.

Upload pleading to use the new AI search

Click here to upload

Cites

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 9399.

Attorney(S)

Mr. Lester B. Clark, of Houston,
, with whom Mr. Emmett Leo Sheehan, of Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for
Mr. Edwin L. Reynolds, United States Patent Office, of Washington, D.C., with whom
W.W. Cochran, Solicitor, United States Patent Office,
Howard S. Miller, both of Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for

Judges

See more information ...

Smart Summary

SMITH v. OOMS, Commissioner of Patents.

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit to obtain a patent. R.S. § 4915, 35 U.S.C.A. § 63. The Patent Office found that the claims lacked invention.

The finding was a reasonable one. The District Court was therefore right in dismissing the bill. Abbott v. Coe, 71 App.D.C. 195, 109 F.2d 449.

Affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.