Darison Corp. v. Robert C. Watson, Comm'r of Patents, 287 F.2d 150 (D.C. Cir. 1961). · Go Syfert
Search
Darison Corp. v. Robert C. Watson, Comm'r of Patents, 287 F.2d 150 (D.C. Cir. 1961). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
DARISON CORPORATION, Appellant,
v.
Robert C. WATSON, Commissioner of Patents, Appellee
15928.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Feb 23, 1961.
287 F.2d 150
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.
Bazelon, Bastian, Burger.
Published
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.C.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.