Darison Corporation, Appellant, v. Robert C. Watson, Commissioner of Patents, Appellee, 287 F.2d 150 (D.C. Cir. 1961)
Annotate this CaseDecided January 26, 1961
Petition for Rehearing Denied February 23, 1961
Mr. Allen Kirkpatrick, III, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. James L. Dooley, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. George C. Roeming, Attorney, United States Patent Office, with whom Mr. Clarence W. Moore, Solicitor, United States Patent Office, was on the brief, for appellee.
Before BAZELON, BASTIAN* and BURGER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant applied for a patent on processes for testing milk and milk products by the use of acoustical principles previously known in relation to substances other than milk. The District Court reversed the Patent Office as to one claim asserted, finding it patentable, but held the subject matter of certain other claims unpatentable. This appeal is from the denial of claims 34 and 41 of the patent application.
We agree with the District Court that although these claims reflect important developments of substantial value to the industry, they do not meet the standards of invention under controlling decisions interpreting the applicable statute, 35 U.S.C. § 103 (1958). Darison Corp. v. Watson, D.D.C. 1960, 182 F. Supp. 513; see Mandel Bros. v. Wallace, 1948, 335 U.S. 291, 69 S. Ct. 73, 93 L. Ed. 12; cf. L-O-F Glass Fibers Co. v. Watson, 1955, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 69, 228 F.2d 40; In re Dietert, 1957, 44 C.C.P.A. 808, 241 F.2d 746. Hence the judgment of the District Court must be
Affirmed.
Circuit Judge Bastian did not participate in the hearing of this case but counsel for the parties stipulated, that in case of disagreement between the two hearing judges as to disposition of the appeal, the case would be submitted to him on the briefs. The two hearing judges were in agreement but decided, nevertheless, to submit the case on the briefs to Circuit Judge Bastian, who joins in this opinion
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
