Henry K. Puharich v. Edward J. Brenner
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
LEVENTHAL, Circuit Judge:
Appellant, a disappointed applicant for a patent, brought an action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 145, seeking a judgment awarding him a patent. The district court gave judgment to the Commissioner. We affirm.
I
Appellant claims to have invented a device that is effective to expand extra sensory perception and assist in the study of the so-called extra sensory phenomenon. It is a kind of cage, one that apparently looks something like a quiz show think booth, which has electrical installations in the screen casing for generating electrical currents and impulses.
Appellant says…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Abbott v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1939
- California Research Corporation v. David L. Ladd, Commissioner of PatentsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1966
- In Re PerrigoCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931
- In Re OberwegerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1940
- Johns-Manville Corporation v. David L. Ladd, Commissioner of PatentsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1964
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- In re SaetherCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1974
- Titanium Metals Corp. v. MossinghoffDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1984
- Fregeau v. MossinghoffDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1984