U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1962

The Commonwealth Engineering Company of Ohio and Carl Berger v. David L. Ladd, Commissioner of Patents

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided May 31, 1962 · Miller, Burger, Wright

304 F.2d 630; 113 U.S. App. D.C. 53; 133 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 618; 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4955 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Folsom E. Drummond, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Harry A. Toul-min, Jr., Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellants., Mr. J. E. Armore, Atty., with whom Mr. Clarence W. Moore, Solicitor, U. S. Patent Office, was on the brief, for appel-lee.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Henry K. Puharich v. Edward J. Brenner (D.C. Cir. 1969)
Schindler v. Commissioner of Patents (District Court, District of Columbia 1967)
John Threatt v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1962)

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 appeal from the denial of a patent application is wholly without merit. The trial judge, in a de novo proceeding, patiently afforded appellants every opportunity to develop their case. But they failed to show that their frozen blood thawing process would produce the result claimed or be otherwise useful. Accordingly, we affirm on the opinion of the District Court. Commonwealth Engineering Co. v. Ladd, D. D.C., 199 F.Supp. 51.

Affirmed.

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