In re Schram

D.C. Circuit

In re Schram

4 F.2d 958, 55 App. D.C. 291, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 3142

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 6, 1925

DocketNo. 1726

StatusPublished

This text of 4 F.2d 958 (In re Schram) 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 Schram, 4 F.2d 958, 55 App. D.C. 291, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 3142 (D.C. Cir. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a decision of the Patent Office, refusing four claims covering an alleged invention on a screw cap for a fruit jar.

The claimed novelty consists of “a closely rolled bead formed around the lower edge of said cap, whereby the spreading of the lower edge of the cap, and cutting of the gasket or hands, is prevented, and a more uniform sealing action is obtained.” In the other words, appellant has rolled np the lower edge of the old cap, and nothing more. While this change undoubtedly is an improvement over the prior art, it was suggested, as found by the Patent Office, by the patent to Rediugton, No. 1,110,646, which, though differing somewhat from appellant’s device, clearly disclosed the idea.

For the reasons more fully stated by the tribunals of the Patent Office, 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 four claims covering an alleged invention on a screw cap for a fruit jar.

The claimed novelty consists of “a closely rolled bead formed around the lower edge of said cap, whereby the spreading of the lower edge of the cap, and cutting of the gasket or hands, is prevented, and a more uniform sealing action is obtained.” In the other words, appellant has rolled np the lower edge of the old cap, and nothing more. While this change undoubtedly is an improvement over the prior art, it was suggested, as found by the Patent Office, by the patent to Rediugton, No. 1,110,646, which, though differing somewhat from appellant’s device, clearly disclosed the idea.

For the reasons more fully stated by the tribunals of the Patent Office, the decision is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 F.2d 958, 55 App. D.C. 291, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 3142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-schram-cadc-1925.