Cupples v. Watson, 11401.
| Decision Date | 26 March 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 11401.,11401. |
| Parties | CUPPLES v. WATSON, Commissioner of Patents. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Homer L. Cupples, appellant, pro se.
Mr. E. L. Reynolds, Sol., United States Patent Office, Washington, D. C., for appellee. Mr. Joseph Schimmel, Atty., United States Patent Office, Washington, D. C., entered an appearance for appellee.
Before EDGERTON, WILBUR K. MILLER, and PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judges.
Appellant seeks to require appellee, the Commissioner of Patents, to admit him to practice before the Patent Office despite his failure to pass an examination. The trial judge thought it his duty, among other things, to read the examination questions and appellant's answers to them and to review the grading of these answers to the extent of determining that "by reasonable tests, the officials of the Patent Office acted fairly and without discrimination in the grading of the plaintiff's examination, pursuant to a uniform standard, that the plaintiff failed to pass the required examination," etc. Cupples v. Marzall, D.C., 101 F.Supp. 579, 583. We need not decide whether in our opinion this kind of review of the examination was necessary. In all other respects we agree with the opinion of the District Court.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Franchi v. Manbeck, 92-1085
...as to whether there was any substantial basis for the Commissioner's grading of the examination,") aff'd sub nom. Cupples v. Watson, 204 F.2d 58, 97 USPQ 1 (D.C.Cir.1953). Franchi's argument that Moran and Cupples are pre-local rule 213 cases and as such involve a broader scope of review th......
-
Leeds v. Mosbacher
...338 U.S. 318, 320-321, 70 S.Ct. 123, 124-125, 94 L.Ed. 123 (1949); Cupples v. Marzall, 101 F.Supp. 579, 583 (D.D.C.1952), affirmed, 204 F.2d 58 (D.C.Cir.1953). In carrying out this responsibility, the Patent Commissioner has established regulations governing the recognition of agents and at......
-
Klein v. Peterson
...is substantial evidence to support the action of the Patent Office." Cupples v. Marzall, 101 F.Supp. 579, 582 (D.D.C.1952), aff'd, 204 F.2d 58 (D.C.Cir.1959); see also 5 U.S.C. § 706. The scope of review does not contemplate de novo analysis of determinations below involving factual dispute......
-
Slater v. Quigg
...is substantial evidence to support the action of the Patent Office." Cupples v. Marzall 101 F.Supp. 579, 582 (D.D.C.1952) Aff'd 204 F.2d 58 (D.C.Cir.1953). The standard of review for a case such as this is stated in 5 U.S.C. § 706. That section provides in relevant part that: "to the extent......