Cupples v. Watson, No. 11401.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation204 F.2d 58
Decision Date26 March 1953
Docket NumberNo. 11401.
PartiesCUPPLES v. WATSON, Commissioner of Patents.

204 F.2d 58 (1953)

CUPPLES
v.
WATSON, Commissioner of Patents.

No. 11401.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued January 23, 1953.

Decided March 26, 1953.


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.

PER CURIAM.

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
9 practice notes
  • Practice and procedure: Patent and trademark cases rules of practice; representation of others before Patent and Trademark Office,
    • United States
    • Federal Register December 12, 2003
    • December 12, 2003
    ...136 USPQ 627, 628 (D.D.C. 1963), (quoting with approval Cupples v. Marzall, 101 F.Supp. 579, 583, 92 USPQ 169, 172 (D.D.C. 1952), aff'd, 204 F.2d 58, 97 USPQ 1 (D.C. Cir. Paragraph (j) of Sec. 11.7 would provide procedures for the OED Director and Committee on Enrollment to hear cases arisi......
  • Part II
    • United States
    • Federal Register December 12, 2003
    • December 12, 2003
    ...136 USPQ 627, 628 (D.D.C. 1963), (quoting with approval Cupples v. Marzall, 101 F.Supp. 579, 583, 92 USPQ 169, 172 (D.D.C. 1952), aff'd, 204 F.2d 58, 97 USPQ 1 (D.C. Cir. Paragraph (j) of Sec. 11.7 would provide procedures for the OED Director and Committee on Enrollment to hear cases arisi......
  • Franchi v. Manbeck, No. 92-1085
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • August 12, 1992
    ...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 revi......
  • Leeds v. Mosbacher, Civ. A. No. 89-1857.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • February 13, 1990
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Franchi v. Manbeck, No. 92-1085
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • August 12, 1992
    ...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 revi......
  • Leeds v. Mosbacher, Civ. A. No. 89-1857.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • February 13, 1990
    ...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......
  • Peterson, Application of, No. 1066
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alaska (US)
    • July 17, 1972
    ...compelled to read the examination questions and the applicant's answers and to review the grading. Cupples v. Watson, 92 U.S.App.D.C. 166, 204 F.2d 58 21 It is only in light of the extraordinary procedural problem presented by this particular case that we undertake such review. Ordinarily, ......
  • Klein v. Peterson, Civ. A. No. 87-2661
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • August 16, 1988
    ...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 di......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT