Anatomik Footwear Co. v. Coward

Second Circuit

Anatomik Footwear Co. v. Coward

223 F. 1021, 138 C.C.A. 663, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 1831

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 2, 1915

DocketNo. 266

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 223 F. 1021 (Anatomik Footwear Co. v. Coward) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anatomik Footwear Co. v. Coward, 223 F. 1021, 138 C.C.A. 663, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 1831 (2d Cir. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

WARD, Circuit Judge.

The opinion of Judge Rose dismissing the bill in this case founded on United States letters patent No. 812,920, issued to- one Cole, for anatomical footwear, will be found at 220 Fed. 342. It may be conceded that Dr. Galloway did not describe in his article published in 1898 the complainant’s shoe, because he used a heel, higher on one side than on the other, and also that Kohn’s patent, being merely for design, shows nothing material and that Tillottson’s patent does not claim the features that Dr. Cole relies on. Still these documents and the proof of prior practice taken together do show that before Dr. Cole applied for his patent it was known that a wide solo and shank and heel, the heel being longer than usual and projecting forwardly on one side, were beneficial, whether the anatomical reasons were appreciated or not. We do not think that what the patentee did under these circumstances amounted to invention. Decree affirmed.

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

WARD, Circuit Judge.

The opinion of Judge Rose dismissing the bill in this case founded on United States letters patent No. 812,920, issued to- one Cole, for anatomical footwear, will be found at 220 Fed. 342. It may be conceded that Dr. Galloway did not describe in his article published in 1898 the complainant’s shoe, because he used a heel, higher on one side than on the other, and also that Kohn’s patent, being merely for design, shows nothing material and that Tillottson’s patent does not claim the features that Dr. Cole relies on. Still these documents and the proof of prior practice taken together do show that before Dr. Cole applied for his patent it was known that a wide solo and shank and heel, the heel being longer than usual and projecting forwardly on one side, were beneficial, whether the anatomical reasons were appreciated or not. We do not think that what the patentee did under these circumstances amounted to invention. Decree affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 F. 1021, 138 C.C.A. 663, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 1831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anatomik-footwear-co-v-coward-ca2-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack