Case ID: ccpa_18-2/html/0711-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Graham, Presiding Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

44 F. (2d) 881
    In re Thomas J. Dixon
    (No. 2542)
    United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals,
    December 1, 1930
    
      Harry F. Riley (C?. J. Rollandet and George 0. Shoemaker of counsel) for appellant.
    
      T. A. Hostetler for the Commissioner of Patents.
    [Oral argument November 20, 1930, by Mr. Riley and Mr. Hostetler]
    Before Graham, Presiding Judge, and Bland, Hatfield, Garrett, and Lenroot, Associate Judges
   Graham, Presiding Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court::

The appellant has prepared a form of a promissory judgment note with attorney’s fee clause, and a declaration of lien written therein, and seeks to patent it under application, serial No. 123,682, filed July 20, 1926. Both the examiner and the Board of Appeals rejected the application on the ground that the alleged invention did not constitute a new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvements thereof, as required by section 4886, K.. S. We are in entire accord with the decisions of the Patent Office tribunals. The law is well settled by Hotel Security, etc., v. Lorraine Co., 160 Fed. 467; Berardini v. Tocci, 200 Fed. 1021; Moore v. United States, 50 Ct. Cl. 120; In re Moeser, 27 App. D. C. 307.

The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.