Carl S. Zilk v. Deaton's Fountain Service

Ninth Circuit

Carl S. Zilk v. Deaton's Fountain Service

377 F.2d 545, 153 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 386, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6685

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 19, 1967

Docket21194_1

StatusPublished

This text of 377 F.2d 545 (Carl S. Zilk v. Deaton's Fountain Service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carl S. Zilk v. Deaton's Fountain Service, 377 F.2d 545, 153 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 386, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6685 (9th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The district court held invalid Patent No. 2,887,250 issued to Carl Zilk on May 19, 1959, and entered a judgment to that effect on appellees’ motion, notwithstanding a jury verdict to the contrary. As we read the opinion of the district court, it applied the standard of Brady v. Southern R. R., 320 U.S. 476, 479-480, 64 S.Ct. 232, 88 L.Ed. 239 (1943), that “When the evidence is such that without weighing the credibility of the witnesses there can be but one reasonable conclusion as to the verdict, the court should determine the proceeding * * * by judgment notwithstanding the verdict.” We have examined the record and agree that the uncontradicted evidence requires the conclusion that “the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art”. 35 U.S.C.A. § 103.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

The district court held invalid Patent No. 2,887,250 issued to Carl Zilk on May 19, 1959, and entered a judgment to that effect on appellees’ motion, notwithstanding a jury verdict to the contrary. As we read the opinion of the district court, it applied the standard of Brady v. Southern R. R., 320 U.S. 476, 479-480, 64 S.Ct. 232, 88 L.Ed. 239 (1943), that “When the evidence is such that without weighing the credibility of the witnesses there can be but one reasonable conclusion as to the verdict, the court should determine the proceeding * * * by judgment notwithstanding the verdict.” We have examined the record and agree that the uncontradicted evidence requires the conclusion that “the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art”. 35 U.S.C.A. § 103.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

377 F.2d 545, 153 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 386, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carl-s-zilk-v-deatons-fountain-service-ca9-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack