Central Manufacturing Company v. B-M-K Corporation

Third Circuit

Central Manufacturing Company v. B-M-K Corporation

255 F.2d 927, 118 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 134, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 5803

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJuly 3, 1958

Docket12574

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 255 F.2d 927 (Central Manufacturing Company v. B-M-K Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Central Manufacturing Company v. B-M-K Corporation, 255 F.2d 927, 118 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 134, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 5803 (3d Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A thorough study of the record in this case indicates that there is substantial evidence to support each of the essential findings of the district court, namely, anticipation, prior public use, and obviousness of the patent in question.

Here appellant contends that the district court used the test of “inventive genius” as the standard. A fair reading of his opinion, however, indicates that he understood this to mean an “exercise of inventive faculty.” In any event, our examination of the record discloses that the court could have arrived at only one conclusion, i. e., that there was anticipation and obviousness, and that the process has not “produced a new and useful result which called for more than the ingenuity of a mechanic skilled in the art.” Fisch v. Gould, 3 Cir., 1957, 246 F.2d 5, 7-8.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

A thorough study of the record in this case indicates that there is substantial evidence to support each of the essential findings of the district court, namely, anticipation, prior public use, and obviousness of the patent in question.

Here appellant contends that the district court used the test of “inventive genius” as the standard. A fair reading of his opinion, however, indicates that he understood this to mean an “exercise of inventive faculty.” In any event, our examination of the record discloses that the court could have arrived at only one conclusion, i. e., that there was anticipation and obviousness, and that the process has not “produced a new and useful result which called for more than the ingenuity of a mechanic skilled in the art.” Fisch v. Gould, 3 Cir., 1957, 246 F.2d 5, 7-8.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 F.2d 927, 118 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 134, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 5803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-manufacturing-company-v-b-m-k-corporation-ca3-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack