Houghton v. Ooms

District of Columbia

Houghton v. Ooms

155 F.2d 745, 81 U.S. App. D.C. 153, 69 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 458, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 3846

District Court, District of Columbia·Decided June 3, 1946·No. No. 9147·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit under R. S. § 4915, 35 U.S. C. § 63, 35 U.S.C.A. § 63, to obtain a patent. The record supports the District Court’s findings that the claims do not distinguish over the prior art except in terms of function, General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 58 S.Ct. 899, 82 L.Ed. 1402, Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Coe, 72 App.D C. 183, 113 F.2d 512, and that the claims do not define an invention. The judgment dismissing the complaint is therefore affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit under R. S. § 4915, 35 U.S. C. § 63, 35 U.S.C.A. § 63, to obtain a patent. The record supports the District Court’s findings that the claims do not distinguish over the prior art except in terms of function, General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 58 S.Ct. 899, 82 L.Ed. 1402, Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Coe, 72 App.D C. 183, 113 F.2d 512, and that the claims do not define an invention. The judgment dismissing the complaint is therefore affirmed.

Houghton v. Ooms, 155 F.2d 745, 81 U.S. App. D.C. 153, 69 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 458, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 3846 (D.D.C. 1946).

Pincite

155 F.2d 745 (Houghton v. Ooms) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related