22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4e7,This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment holding Letters Patent No. 2,-949,398 and No. 3,055,797, granted to appellant, to be invalid and not infringed. They deal with an ornamented paper “constituted by tissue paper which is impregnated” with sequins. Jurisdiction below rested on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338 and 2201. Jurisdiction here rests upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . The trial judge made the following findings, among others: We cannot, on the record before us, hold these findings of fact are clearly erroneous, having due regard for the opportunity the trial judge had to judge the credibility of witnesses, which opportunity was not afforded us. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52 (a). Monroe Auto Equipment Co. v. Superior Industries, 9 Cir. 1964, 332 F.2d 473 , (No. 18998, decided May 22, 1964); Bergman v. Aluminum Lock Shingle Corp. of America, 9 Cir. 1957, 251 F.2d 801, 809 ; Pressteel Co. v. Halo Lighting Products, Inc., 9 Cir. 1963, 314 F.2d 695, 697 , and cases cited. The decision of Judge Rich, sitting with the District Court of the District of Columbia, is not conclusive on the court below, nor on us, particularly where the same evidence introduced in the court below was not necessarily introduced before Judge Rich. Finding no error, we affirm.24:T507,

This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment holding Letters Patent No. 2,-949,398 and No. 3,055,797, granted to appellant, to be invalid and not infringed. They deal with an ornamented paper “constituted by tissue paper which is impregnated” with sequins.

Jurisdiction below rested on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338 and 2201. Jurisdiction here rests upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .

The trial judge made the following findings, among others:

We cannot, on the record before us, hold these findings of fact are clearly erroneous, having due regard for the opportunity the trial judge had to judge the credibility of witnesses, which opportunity was not afforded us. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52 (a). Monroe Auto Equipment Co. v. Superior Industries, 9 Cir. 1964, 332 F.2d 473 , (No. 18998, decided May 22, 1964); Bergman v. Aluminum Lock Shingle Corp. of America, 9 Cir. 1957, 251 F.2d 801, 809 ; Pressteel Co. v. Halo Lighting Products, Inc., 9 Cir. 1963, 314 F.2d 695, 697 , and cases cited.

The decision of Judge Rich, sitting with the District Court of the District of Columbia, is not conclusive on the court below, nor on us, particularly where the same evidence introduced in the court below was not necessarily introduced before Judge Rich.

Finding no error, we affirm.