Fernard v. Oneida National Chuck Co.

Second Circuit

Fernard v. Oneida National Chuck Co.

174 F. 1020, 98 C.C.A. 664, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5285

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 9, 1909

DocketNo. 82

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 174 F. 1020 (Fernard v. Oneida National Chuck 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

Fernard v. Oneida National Chuck Co., 174 F. 1020, 98 C.C.A. 664, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5285 (2d Cir. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant criticises the opinion of the Circuit Court on the ground that it “took judicial notice” of the thill couplings of the prior art But it was not necessary to find any prior art other than such as the patent itself discloses. It is manifest from the patentee’s own statements that all he did was to bend over or clinch the eDds of the wire link, so as to prevent their slipping out of the apertures in which they were inserted. Of course, to do this he had to enlarge the interior of the aperture sufficiently to turn them. No amount of evidence, expert or other, could possibly raise such an obvious expedient to the dignity of an invention. The decree is affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant criticises the opinion of the Circuit Court on the ground that it “took judicial notice” of the thill couplings of the prior art But it was not necessary to find any prior art other than such as the patent itself discloses. It is manifest from the patentee’s own statements that all he did was to bend over or clinch the eDds of the wire link, so as to prevent their slipping out of the apertures in which they were inserted. Of course, to do this he had to enlarge the interior of the aperture sufficiently to turn them. No amount of evidence, expert or other, could possibly raise such an obvious expedient to the dignity of an invention. The decree is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 F. 1020, 98 C.C.A. 664, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fernard-v-oneida-national-chuck-co-ca2-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack