Cawood v. Coe

D.C. Circuit

Cawood v. Coe

122 F.2d 553, 74 App. D.C. 396, 51 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 548, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 3025

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 30, 1941

DocketNo. 7750

StatusPublished

This text of 122 F.2d 553 (Cawood v. Coe) 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

Cawood v. Coe, 122 F.2d 553, 74 App. D.C. 396, 51 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 548, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 3025 (D.C. Cir. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit to obtain a patent on an improvement in ball mills for grinding or “dispersing” paint, ink products, etc. The claims relate to “streamlined enlargements” or gradual undulations on the inside of, and integral with, the wall of the mill. We think the Patent Office and the District Court were clearly right in finding that the claims lack invention over the prior art.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit to obtain a patent on an improvement in ball mills for grinding or “dispersing” paint, ink products, etc. The claims relate to “streamlined enlargements” or gradual undulations on the inside of, and integral with, the wall of the mill. We think the Patent Office and the District Court were clearly right in finding that the claims lack invention over the prior art.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 F.2d 553, 74 App. D.C. 396, 51 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 548, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 3025, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cawood-v-coe-cadc-1941.