American Cyanamid Co. v. Marzall

D.C. Circuit

American Cyanamid Co. v. Marzall

196 F.2d 24, 90 U.S. App. D.C. 285, 92 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 342, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 4290

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMarch 13, 1952

Docket11096_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 196 F.2d 24 (American Cyanamid Co. v. Marzall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Cyanamid Co. v. Marzall, 196 F.2d 24, 90 U.S. App. D.C. 285, 92 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 342, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 4290 (D.C. Cir. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Froth flotation was well known to the prior art. This is not disputed. The appellant’s assignors put froth flotation to practical and successful use in the elimination of contaminants or solid particles from lubricating and cooling emulsions, called lubricating or emulsion coolants. *25 The District Court in an action filed by-appellant pursuant to Rev.Stat. § 4915 (1878), as amended, 35 U.S.C.A. § 63, found that the discovery of this new usefulness of froth flotation did not amount to patentable invention and dismissed the action. The effect was to leave undisturbed the Patent Office decision that the claims involved are unpatentable in view of the prior art.

We agree. The situation described falls within the principles of Lovell Manufacturing Co. v. Cary, 1893, 147 U.S. 623, at page 634, 13 S.Ct. 472, 476, 37 L.Ed. 307, where the Court said, “ * * * the public cannot be deprived of an old process because some one has discovered that it is capable of producing a better result, or has a wider range of use than was before known.” See, also, General Electric Co. v. Jewel Co., 1945, 326 U.S. 242, at page 248, 66 S.Ct. 81, 90 L.Ed. 43.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Froth flotation was well known to the prior art. This is not disputed. The appellant’s assignors put froth flotation to practical and successful use in the elimination of contaminants or solid particles from lubricating and cooling emulsions, called lubricating or emulsion coolants. *25 The District Court in an action filed by-appellant pursuant to Rev.Stat. § 4915 (1878), as amended, 35 U.S.C.A. § 63, found that the discovery of this new usefulness of froth flotation did not amount to patentable invention and dismissed the action. The effect was to leave undisturbed the Patent Office decision that the claims involved are unpatentable in view of the prior art.

We agree. The situation described falls within the principles of Lovell Manufacturing Co. v. Cary, 1893, 147 U.S. 623, at page 634, 13 S.Ct. 472, 476, 37 L.Ed. 307, where the Court said, “ * * * the public cannot be deprived of an old process because some one has discovered that it is capable of producing a better result, or has a wider range of use than was before known.” See, also, General Electric Co. v. Jewel Co., 1945, 326 U.S. 242, at page 248, 66 S.Ct. 81, 90 L.Ed. 43.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 F.2d 24, 90 U.S. App. D.C. 285, 92 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 342, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 4290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-cyanamid-co-v-marzall-cadc-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack