Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
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
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

In re DIXON.

GRAHAM, Presiding Judge.

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, as required by section 4886, Rev. St. ( 35 USCA § 31). 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 (C.C.A.) 160 F. 467, 24 L.R.A. (N.S.) 665; Berardini v. Tocci (C.C.A.) 200 F. 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.

Affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

IN RE DIXON
(Dec 1, 1930)