Charles N. Cresap v. Chemplast, Inc

316 F.2d 920, 137 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 392, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5580
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedApril 16, 1963
Docket14155_1
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 316 F.2d 920 (Charles N. Cresap v. Chemplast, Inc) 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
Charles N. Cresap v. Chemplast, Inc, 316 F.2d 920, 137 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 392, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5580 (3d Cir. 1963).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The issue presented for our determination on this appeal is the validity of U.S. Patent No. 2,929,109. An examination of the record convinces us that the patent discloses nothing of patentable novelty. It seems, mechanical ingenuity aside, to •contain nothing not adequately shown by the prior art. We conclude that it would not serve any useful purpose to review the evidence or the arguments of the parties here. Nothing can be added of consequence to the carefully prepared opinion of Judge Meaney in the court below. 216 F.Supp. 870. The judgment will be affirmed.

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

Related

Builders Service Corp. v. Planning & Zoning Commission
545 A.2d 530 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
316 F.2d 920, 137 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 392, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-n-cresap-v-chemplast-inc-ca3-1963.