U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1944

Corning Glass Works v. Coe

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided April 10, 1944 · Groner, Miller, Proctor

141 F.2d 550; 79 U.S. App. D.C. 395; 61 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 544; 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3739 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Vernon M. Dorsey, of Washington, D. C., for appellant., Mr. E. L. Reynolds, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. W. W. Cochran, Solicitor, United States Patent Office, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Besser v. Ooms (D.C. Cir. 1946)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

The findings and judgment of the trial court, 51 F.Supp. 232, find full support in the record. Appellant has failed to meet the burden imposed upon a plaintiff in a Section 4915 proceeding1 and is not entitled to a patent.

Affirmed.

35 U.S.C.A. § 63; Abbott v. Coe, 71 App.D.C. 195, 197, 198, 109 F.2d 449, 451, 452; Daniels v. Coe, 73 App.D.C. 54, 58, 116 F.2d 941, 945; Morrison v. Coe, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 219, 220, 127 F.2d 737, 738.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.