CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for www.chanrobles.com


EX PARTE FRASCH, 192 U. S. 566 (1904)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 192 U. S. 566 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Ex Parte Frasch, 192 U.S. 566 (1904)

Ex Parte Frasch

No.13, Original

»Argued December 18, 21, 1903

Decided February 23, 1904

192 U.S. 566

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE COURT

OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Syllabus

Mandamus to the Commissioner, and not to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, is the proper remedy to compel the forwarding of an appeal to the board of examiners-in-chief from the primary examiner.

The facts are stated in the opinion. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 192 U. S. 567

MR. JUSTICE McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia to take jurisdiction of an appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.

The petition shows that petitioner was the first inventor of a new and useful improvement in the art of making salt by evaporation of brine, which improvement consisted of new and useful means for removing incrustation of calcium sulphate from brine heating surfaces.

Petitioner applied for a patent for his invention in due form, and expressed his invention in six claims, three of which were for the process of removing incrustation of calcium sulphate from heating surfaces, and three of which were for an apparatus for use in the process.

The primary examiner decided that "two different subjects of invention" were presented in the specification and claims, and required a division of the claims under Rule 41 of the Patent Office. A reconsideration of the decision was requested and denied. A petition for an appeal to the board of examiners-in-chief was filed. The primary examiner refused to allow the appeal. A petition was then presented to the Commissioner of Patents praying that he make such order or take such action that petitioner's appeal to the examiners-in-chief might be heard, or, if that prayer be denied, that the Commissioner himself "consider the various matters all and severally raised by the appeal." Both prayers were denied, and petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. That court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. This petition was then filed and a rule to show cause issued. A return to the rule was duly made.

We have just held in United States v. Allen, ante, p. 192 U. S. 543, that Rule 41 of the Patent Office, insofar as it requires a division between claims for a process and claims for an apparatus, if they are related and dependent inventions, is invalid. We however chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 192 U. S. 568

held that mandamus to the Commissioner, not appeal to the Court of Appeals of the District, was the proper remedy. It follows, therefore, that the rule to show cause should be discharged and the petition be dismissed, and it is

So ordered.





Back
ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for chanrobles.com Search for www.chanrobles.com


Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



www.chanrobles.us




QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

Browse By ->> Volume


cralaw

Browse By ->> Year


cralaw

  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED