In re Templeton

D.C. Circuit

In re Templeton

17 F.2d 687, 57 App. D.C. 99, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 3008

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 7, 1927

DocketNo. 1879

StatusPublished

This text of 17 F.2d 687 (In re Templeton) 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 Templeton, 17 F.2d 687, 57 App. D.C. 99, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 3008 (D.C. Cir. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.

This appeal is from the decision of the Commissioner denying appellant’s application for a patent for a construction relating to a socket and wooden handle for a lifting jack.

The jack is admittedly old in the art, and the process of lifting by an adjustable handle inserted in a socket is old. Appellant discovered that a round wooden handle used for lifting purposes would break when the pressure was imposed across the grain of the wood. Appellant’s claims are for a pole shaped, with respect to the claim, so that it can be inserted in the socket in only one of two positions, and, when inserted the direction of the grain, is lengthwise of the pole, and thereby gives to the pole or lever its maximum strength.

To accomplish this result the. soeket is made in oval form in cross-section; the greater transverse axis being in á vertical plane. The handle thus constructed to fit the socket has its major axis in a vertical plane, and, being capable of insertion only in this determined, position, the grain of the wood, can be so adjusted that, when the handle is in position, it will be capable of resisting to its maximum strength.* But this method of constructing ax handles, hammer handles, and tool handles generally, in this strain-re[688]*688sisting shape, is old. There is, therefore, nothing patentable in appellant’s device.

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 denying appellant’s application for a patent for a construction relating to a socket and wooden handle for a lifting jack.

The jack is admittedly old in the art, and the process of lifting by an adjustable handle inserted in a socket is old. Appellant discovered that a round wooden handle used for lifting purposes would break when the pressure was imposed across the grain of the wood. Appellant’s claims are for a pole shaped, with respect to the claim, so that it can be inserted in the socket in only one of two positions, and, when inserted the direction of the grain, is lengthwise of the pole, and thereby gives to the pole or lever its maximum strength.

To accomplish this result the. soeket is made in oval form in cross-section; the greater transverse axis being in á vertical plane. The handle thus constructed to fit the socket has its major axis in a vertical plane, and, being capable of insertion only in this determined, position, the grain of the wood, can be so adjusted that, when the handle is in position, it will be capable of resisting to its maximum strength.* But this method of constructing ax handles, hammer handles, and tool handles generally, in this strain-re[688]*688sisting shape, is old. There is, therefore, nothing patentable in appellant’s device.

The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 F.2d 687, 57 App. D.C. 99, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 3008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-templeton-cadc-1927.