In re Lambert Tire & Rubber Co.

D.C. Circuit

In re Lambert Tire & Rubber Co.

12 F.2d 1012, 56 App. D.C. 402, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 3435

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 1, 1926

DocketNo. 1855

StatusPublished

This text of 12 F.2d 1012 (In re Lambert Tire & Rubber Co.) 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 Lambert Tire & Rubber Co., 12 F.2d 1012, 56 App. D.C. 402, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 3435 (D.C. Cir. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from a decision of the Patent Office rejecting the claims of appellant’s application for an automobile tire design, on the design patent to Pollen, No. 55,600.

We agree with the Patent Office that applicant has taken the elements of Pollen’s tire and slightly rearranged them, and that such rearrangement does not amount to invention. The design of the tire exhibited at the oral argument is not the design of the application. The decision is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from a decision of the Patent Office rejecting the claims of appellant’s application for an automobile tire design, on the design patent to Pollen, No. 55,600.

We agree with the Patent Office that applicant has taken the elements of Pollen’s tire and slightly rearranged them, and that such rearrangement does not amount to invention. The design of the tire exhibited at the oral argument is not the design of the application. The decision is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 F.2d 1012, 56 App. D.C. 402, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 3435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lambert-tire-rubber-co-cadc-1926.