In re Lobdell

D.C. Circuit

In re Lobdell

10 F.2d 656, 56 App. D.C. 91, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 2293

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 7, 1925

DocketNo. 1771

StatusPublished

This text of 10 F.2d 656 (In re Lobdell) 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 Lobdell, 10 F.2d 656, 56 App. D.C. 91, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 2293 (D.C. Cir. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a decision of the Patent Office refusing claims for a patent on an automobile steering wheel. Claim 1, of the several claims, is sufficiently illustrative, and is. here reproduced :

“1. A steering wheel for motor vehicles comprising a metal hub having a plurality of sockets arranged in substantially the same plane, a wooden rim rounded in cross-seetion throughout and adapted to be gripped at any point transversely by the hand of the operator, and wooden spokes having their inner ends mounted in said sockets of the hub and their outer ends rigidly secured to said rim.”

Appellant has substituted for the spokes of the prior art wooden spokes, and, while his wheel undoubtedly is superior in some respects to the wheels of the prior art, we are constrained to agree with the Assistant Commissioner that the advantages claimed for this wheel are inherent and universally known to reside in the material employed, and that the substitution of wooden spokes, in view of the teachings of the prior art, did not involve invention. The decision is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a decision of the Patent Office refusing claims for a patent on an automobile steering wheel. Claim 1, of the several claims, is sufficiently illustrative, and is. here reproduced :

“1. A steering wheel for motor vehicles comprising a metal hub having a plurality of sockets arranged in substantially the same plane, a wooden rim rounded in cross-seetion throughout and adapted to be gripped at any point transversely by the hand of the operator, and wooden spokes having their inner ends mounted in said sockets of the hub and their outer ends rigidly secured to said rim.”

Appellant has substituted for the spokes of the prior art wooden spokes, and, while his wheel undoubtedly is superior in some respects to the wheels of the prior art, we are constrained to agree with the Assistant Commissioner that the advantages claimed for this wheel are inherent and universally known to reside in the material employed, and that the substitution of wooden spokes, in view of the teachings of the prior art, did not involve invention. The decision is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 F.2d 656, 56 App. D.C. 91, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 2293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lobdell-cadc-1925.