J. B. Monette Co. v. Kurtzon

Seventh Circuit

J. B. Monette Co. v. Kurtzon

272 F. 687, 1921 U.S. App. LEXIS 1681

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedMarch 12, 1921

DocketNo. 2817

StatusPublished

This text of 272 F. 687 (J. B. Monette Co. v. Kurtzon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

J. B. Monette Co. v. Kurtzon, 272 F. 687, 1921 U.S. App. LEXIS 1681 (7th Cir. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On final hearing appellant’s suit for alleged infringement of claims 2 and 4 of patent No. 878,147, and claim 1 of patent No. 971,300, both issued to Monette, was dismissed for want of equity.

“Counter protecting devices” did not owe their origin to Monette. In numerous prior art structures standards and brackets had been attached to the front edge of shop counters, and wire or glass had been affixed to the standards and brackets in such a way as to shut off the goods on the counter from the customers in front and to leave them accessible to the clerks behind the counter. Nothing remained for Monette or others except detail improvements. While his claims are phrased in rather formidable language, their substance, viewed in the light of the prior art, involved only such expedients in forming standards and brackets to receive plates of glass as were obvious to the ordinary workman.

The decree is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

On final hearing appellant’s suit for alleged infringement of claims 2 and 4 of patent No. 878,147, and claim 1 of patent No. 971,300, both issued to Monette, was dismissed for want of equity.

“Counter protecting devices” did not owe their origin to Monette. In numerous prior art structures standards and brackets had been attached to the front edge of shop counters, and wire or glass had been affixed to the standards and brackets in such a way as to shut off the goods on the counter from the customers in front and to leave them accessible to the clerks behind the counter. Nothing remained for Monette or others except detail improvements. While his claims are phrased in rather formidable language, their substance, viewed in the light of the prior art, involved only such expedients in forming standards and brackets to receive plates of glass as were obvious to the ordinary workman.

The decree is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 F. 687, 1921 U.S. App. LEXIS 1681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-b-monette-co-v-kurtzon-ca7-1921.