U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1961

Gustav Schafer v. Robert C. Watson, Commissioner of Patents, Herbert Bestian v. Robert C. Watson, Commissioner of Patents

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided February 9, 1961 · Reed, Edgerton, Danaher

288 F.2d 144; 128 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 283; 109 U.S. App. D.C. 360; 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 5367 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Henry W. Koster, New York City, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. Miles D. Pillars, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellants., Mr. Raymond E. Martin, Attorney, United States Patent Office, for appellee., Mr. C. W. Moore, Solicitor, United States Patent Office, also entered an appearance for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision. The 7 that cite it most often are listed here.

Gustav Schafer v. Robert C. Watson, Commissioner of Patents, Herbert Bestian v. Robert C. Watson, Commissioner of Patents (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1961)
Edwin L. Reynolds, Acting Commissioner of Patents v. Elie P. Aghnides (D.C. Cir. 1966)
Edwid E. Hays and Wallace & Tiernan, Inc. v. Edward J. Brenner, Commissioner of Patents (D.C. Cir. 1966)
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company v. David L. Ladd, Commissioner of Patents (D.C. Cir. 1965)
The Maytag Company, a Corporation v. The Murray Corporation of America, a Corporation (6th Cir. 1963)
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ladd (District Court, District of Columbia 1963)
Roy Y. Sanders, Jr. v. David L. Ladd, Commissioner of Patents (D.C. Cir. 1961)

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.

The Patent Office having rejected certain patent claims of the appellants as unpatentable over the prior art, appellants brought these suits against the Commissioner of Patents under 66 Stat. 803, 35 U.S.C. § 145. The District Court held a hearing, agreed with the Patent Office that the claims were not inventive, and dismissed the complaints.

“Although a court, when it agrees with a Patent Office finding, often says so, agreement is not necessary to affirmance and disagreement is not sufficient for reversal.” Abbott v. Coe, 71 App.D.C. 195, 197, 109 F.2d 449, 451. “Since invention is a question of fact, a reasonable finding that claims lack invention should not be set aside.” Besser v. Ooms, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 7, 8, 154 F.2d 17, 18. “As we pointed out in Abbott v. Coe, * * * a mere preponderance of the evidence is not sufficient with regard to invention; the Patent Office finding must be accepted if it is 'consistent with the evidence,’ the Patent Office being an expert body pre-eminently qualified to determine questions of this kind.” Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Sun Oil Co., 97 U.S.App.D.C. 154, 157, 229 F.2d 37, 40. The Patent Office findings do not appear to have been unreasonable. The District Court was therefore right in dismissing the complaints. Moreover, its findings are not to be set aside unless clearly erroneous. F.R.Civ.P. Rule 52 (a), 28 U.S.C.A.

Affirmed.

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