Line Material Co. v. Coe

Full title: LINE MATERIAL CO. et al. v. COE, Commissioner of Patents

Court: United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Date published: Jul 10, 1944

144 F.2d 518 (D.C. Cir. 1944)

Opinion

No. 8491.

Argued January 20, 1944.

Decided July 10, 1944.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.

Suit by the Line Material Company and William O. Schultz against Conway P. Coe, Commissioner of Patents, to compel the issuance of a patent on three claims which were refused by the Patent Office. From a judgment dismissing the complaint, 40 F. Supp. 633, the plaintiffs appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Charles F. Meroni, of Chicago, Ill., with whom Mr. William A. Smith, Jr., of Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellants. Mr. William J. Cerny, of Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for appellants.

Mr. W.W. Cochran, Solicitor, United States Patent Office, of Washington, D.C., for appellee.

Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and MILLER and ARNOLD, Associate Justices.

PER CURIAM.

This is in form a suit under Section 4915, R.S., 35 U.S.C.A. § 63, to compel the issuance of a patent on three claims which were refused by the Patent Office on the sole ground that they constituted new matter not disclosed in the application. The court below made findings in accordance with the rulings of the Patent Office and dismissed the complaint.

It appears from the record that plaintiffs' original application became involved in interference proceedings. Claims in this suit were not originally made by appellants; they were copied from one of the other patent applications at the suggestion of the Examiner. After the copied claims were added to appellants' application rival parties to the interference moved to dissolve it as to appellants on the ground that the copied claims were not supported by the application. The effect of a decision in appellants' favor can only be to reinstate them in the interference proceedings. If we reversed the administrative ruling of the Patent Office it would still be impossible to adjudge that appellants were entitled to a patent because that question would then depend on whether they had priority over the other parties to the interference who are not before this court.

We, therefore, affirm the dismissal of this complaint under the authority of Hoover Co. v. Coe, ___ U.S.App.D.C. ___, 144 F.2d 514.

Affirmed.