U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1958

Robert C. Switzer v. Robert C. Watson, Commissioner of Patents

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided January 9, 1958 · No. 13948 · Prettyman, Fahy, Bastían

251 F.2d 386; 102 U.S. App. D.C. 145 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Albert L. Ely, Jr., Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant. Messrs. Roberts B. Lar-' son and Andrew E. Taylor, Washington, D. C., also entered appearances for appellant., Mr. Joseph Schimmel, Atty., United States Patent Office, with whom Mr. Clarence W. Moore, Sol., United States Patent Office, was on the brief, for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Switzer v. Watson (District Court, District of Columbia 1960)

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court denying, after a trial de novo under 35 U.S.C. § 145, patentability of a visible penetrant method of non-destructive testing, a method by which the existence and location of minute cracks and flaws may be readily detected. The ground for the denial in the District Court was that the subject matter of the claims was nonpatentable over prior art and patents, and, in the case of one of the claims (No. 11), unpatentable on the ground of double patenting. The Primary Examiner and the Board of Patent Appeals had reached the same conclusion. 1

An examination of the record discloses, no error which would warrant disturbing the findings of the District Court. See Standard Oil Development Co. v. Marzall, 1950, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 210, 181 F.2d 280; Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Sun Oil Co., 1956, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 154, 229 F.2d 37.

Affirmed.

. Cf. Application of Ward, Cust. & Pat.App.1956, 236 F.2d 428.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.