93 F.2d 56 - Kollsman v. Coe — 93 F.2d 56

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently April 2007

2 federal appellate · 5 district · 9 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1Leonard Day, of New York City, for appellant.

¶2R. F. Whitehead, Solicitor, U. S. Patent Office, and Wm. Wallace Cochran, both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

¶3Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, VAN ORSDEL, GRONER, and STEPHENS, Associate Justices.

¶4STEPHENS, Associate Justice.

¶5This is a suit brought under section 4915 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (35 U.S.C. § 63 [35 U.S.C.A. § 63]). It was based upon a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, which rejected Claims 1 to 7 of the appellant’s application for patent. The District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia decreed that the appellant was entitled to a patent on his application, Serial No. 705,642 filed January 8, 1934, entitled “Quick Reading Indicator,” the patent to include Claim 7, but not to include Claims 1 to 6, both inclusive.

¶6No appeal was taken from that part of the decree which allowed Claim 7. The appellant abandoned Claims 3 and 4, and the appeal involves only Claims 1, 2, 5 and 6.

¶7We have carefully considered the record and briefs. For the reasons set forth by the tribunals of the Patent Office, which we deem it unnecessary to repeat, we are convinced that the appealed claims, read in the light of the specification, show nothing that involved invention.

¶8Decree affirmed.

¶9VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice, sat during the argument of this case, but died before the opinion was prepared.