SHELDON L. POLLACK ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
DAVID L. LADD, COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the claims at issue were directly readable upon prior art, and thus, patentability was not established.
Appellants sought a patent for a method of erecting a high-strength grout-filled metal-reinforced brick wall and the resulting wall. After adverse rul…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Commercial Success cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHER, Circuit Judge.
After adverse rulings by the tribunals of the Patent Office, the appellants here asked the District Court to authorize the Commissioner to issue a patent on their application, serial No. 825, 124. Particularly involved were the appellants’ Claim 17 respecting a method of erection of a high-strength grout-filled metal-reinforced brick wall and Claim 18 describing a relatively inexpensive wall constructed in accordance with the method of Claim 17. After the de novo trial authorized by 35 U.S.C. § 145 (1965), the District Judge rendered an opinion pursuant to which judgment was entered for the Commissioner. The experienced and able trial judge concluded that each of the claims at issue was directly readable upon prior art. Our examination of the entire record has persuaded us that we are bound to affirm.
There is no question that the appellants taught an improved method of erecting a highly useful grout-filled monolithic building wall. The results in actual use were seen to be excellent, indeed the evidence showed a high degree of commercial success. Important though such factors may be in a close case, of themselves they do not establish patentability. The trial judge reasonably could have concluded that there simply was an inadequate showing of invention.
We are bound to affirm.1
. Standard Oil Development Co. v. Marzall, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 210, 214, 181 F. 2d 280, 284 (1950); cf. L-O-F Glass Fibers Company v. Watson, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 69, 76, 228 F. 2d 40, 47 (1955).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Standard Oil Dev. Co. v. Marzall, 181 F.2d 280 (D.C. Cir. 1950)
- L-O-F Glass Fibers Co. & Everett J. Cook v. Watson, 228 F.2d 40 (D.C. Cir. 1955)