Johnson v. Columbia Cotton Oil Mill Mfg. Co.

Fifth Circuit

Johnson v. Columbia Cotton Oil Mill Mfg. Co.

179 F. 231, 102 C.C.A. 483, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4631

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 16, 1910

DocketNo. 2,045

StatusPublished

This text of 179 F. 231 (Johnson v. Columbia Cotton Oil Mill Mfg. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Johnson v. Columbia Cotton Oil Mill Mfg. Co., 179 F. 231, 102 C.C.A. 483, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4631 (5th Cir. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit on a patent for a process. The-process claimed is the use in the extraction of oil from cotton seed of the mixture of cotton seed bran with the cotton seed meats in proportion of 2y2 per cent, to' 30 per cent. The proof shows that prior to the alleged invention a mixture of cotton seed hulls with the meats occurred in the process of preparing seed before compressing the oil, because the machinery used for preparing the seed for the press was inefficient to separate entirely the hulls from the meats, and the hulls in part went into the same mass with the meats.

It seems to make no difference whether the hulls go into the mass necessarily from the inability to prevent them or purposely by being placed there. We do not think there is such difference between cotton seed hulls and cotton seed bran as to make patentee’s process new or patentable. Both cotton seed hulls and cotton seed bran are from the outside covering or husk of the cotton seed. The claim that the “cotton seed bran” is the hull of the cotton seed with all the fiber removed is a distinction too fine to give validity to the patent.

The decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit on a patent for a process. The-process claimed is the use in the extraction of oil from cotton seed of the mixture of cotton seed bran with the cotton seed meats in proportion of 2y2 per cent, to' 30 per cent. The proof shows that prior to the alleged invention a mixture of cotton seed hulls with the meats occurred in the process of preparing seed before compressing the oil, because the machinery used for preparing the seed for the press was inefficient to separate entirely the hulls from the meats, and the hulls in part went into the same mass with the meats.

It seems to make no difference whether the hulls go into the mass necessarily from the inability to prevent them or purposely by being placed there. We do not think there is such difference between cotton seed hulls and cotton seed bran as to make patentee’s process new or patentable. Both cotton seed hulls and cotton seed bran are from the outside covering or husk of the cotton seed. The claim that the “cotton seed bran” is the hull of the cotton seed with all the fiber removed is a distinction too fine to give validity to the patent.

The decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 F. 231, 102 C.C.A. 483, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-columbia-cotton-oil-mill-mfg-co-ca5-1910.