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

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedJune 3, 1946

DocketNo. 9147

StatusPublished

This text of 155 F.2d 745 (Houghton v. Ooms) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 F.2d 745, 81 U.S. App. D.C. 153, 69 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 458, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 3846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/houghton-v-ooms-dcd-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack