In re Erickson

D.C. Circuit

In re Erickson

24 F.2d 904, 58 App. D.C. 76, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 2202

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMarch 5, 1928

DocketNo. 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 24 F.2d 904 (In re Erickson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Erickson, 24 F.2d 904, 58 App. D.C. 76, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 2202 (D.C. Cir. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.

This appeal is from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, denying the application of appellant for a patent for a telephone elbow rest.

The application discloses an elbow pad for use in connection with a desk telephone. The pad is connected to the telephone by an elastic band, provided with snap button fasteners for securing the end of the band around the telephone standard. The patent was rejected upon two references; but, without stopping to consider these references, we are of opinion that the applicatiofi should be rejected on the broader ground that no invention ex-sists in the using of a cushion for an elbow rest in connection with a telephone, as is disclosed in this ease, for the reason that the universal use of cushions for various purposes, analogous to the use here suggested, is lacking in 'inventive initiative.

The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.

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

VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.

This appeal is from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, denying the application of appellant for a patent for a telephone elbow rest.

The application discloses an elbow pad for use in connection with a desk telephone. The pad is connected to the telephone by an elastic band, provided with snap button fasteners for securing the end of the band around the telephone standard. The patent was rejected upon two references; but, without stopping to consider these references, we are of opinion that the applicatiofi should be rejected on the broader ground that no invention ex-sists in the using of a cushion for an elbow rest in connection with a telephone, as is disclosed in this ease, for the reason that the universal use of cushions for various purposes, analogous to the use here suggested, is lacking in 'inventive initiative.

The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 F.2d 904, 58 App. D.C. 76, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 2202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-erickson-cadc-1928.