Esso Research & Engineering Co. v. Kahn & Co.

Second Circuit

Esso Research & Engineering Co. v. Kahn & Co.

513 F.2d 1341, 186 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 317

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 28, 1975

DocketNo. 575, Docket 74-1765

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 513 F.2d 1341 (Esso Research & Engineering Co. v. Kahn & Co.) 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

Esso Research & Engineering Co. v. Kahn & Co., 513 F.2d 1341, 186 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 317 (2d Cir. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The patent involved in this case was issued to Dr. Charles W. Skarstrom for his “Method and Apparatus for Fractionating Gasseous Mixtures by Adsorption.” Skarstrom came upon his method by some clever experimenting and modification of the apparatus he was using for a similar purpose when it broke down.

Admirable as Dr. Skarstrom’s work may have been, it was done without knowledge of prior similar work of a German physicist named Kahle. We agree with Judge Blumenfeld that Kahle’s work, not cited to the Patent Office at the time of Skarstrom’s application, contains substantially all the elements of Skarstrom’s device, both individually and in combination. For that reason, Skarstrom’s patent does not satisfy the requirement of nonobviousness established by 35 U.S.C. § 103. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 86 S.Ct. 684, 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966). We therefore affirm on the thorough and well-reasoned opinion of Judge Blumen-feld reported at 379 F.Supp. 205 (D.Conn.1974).

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

PER CURIAM:

The patent involved in this case was issued to Dr. Charles W. Skarstrom for his “Method and Apparatus for Fractionating Gasseous Mixtures by Adsorption.” Skarstrom came upon his method by some clever experimenting and modification of the apparatus he was using for a similar purpose when it broke down.

Admirable as Dr. Skarstrom’s work may have been, it was done without knowledge of prior similar work of a German physicist named Kahle. We agree with Judge Blumenfeld that Kahle’s work, not cited to the Patent Office at the time of Skarstrom’s application, contains substantially all the elements of Skarstrom’s device, both individually and in combination. For that reason, Skarstrom’s patent does not satisfy the requirement of nonobviousness established by 35 U.S.C. § 103. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 86 S.Ct. 684, 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966). We therefore affirm on the thorough and well-reasoned opinion of Judge Blumen-feld reported at 379 F.Supp. 205 (D.Conn.1974).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

513 F.2d 1341, 186 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/esso-research-engineering-co-v-kahn-co-ca2-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack