Kollsman v. Coe

D.C. Circuit

Kollsman v. Coe

93 F.2d 56, 68 App. D.C. 43, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 2720

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedSeptember 13, 1937

DocketNo. 6784

StatusPublished

This text of 93 F.2d 56 (Kollsman v. Coe) 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

Kollsman v. Coe, 93 F.2d 56, 68 App. D.C. 43, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 2720 (D.C. Cir. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

STEPHENS, Associate Justice.

This is a suit brought under section 4915 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (35 U.S.C. § 63 [35 U.S.C.A. § 63]). It was based upon a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, which rejected Claims 1 to 7 of the appellant’s application for patent. The District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia decreed that the appellant was entitled to a patent on his application, Serial No. 705,642 filed January 8, 1934, entitled “Quick Reading Indicator,” the patent to include Claim 7, but not to include Claims 1 to 6, both inclusive.

No appeal was taken from that part of the decree which allowed Claim 7. The appellant abandoned Claims 3 and 4, and the appeal involves only Claims 1, 2, 5 and 6.

We have carefully considered the record and briefs. For the reasons set forth by the tribunals of the Patent Office, which we deem it unnecessary to repeat, we are convinced that the appealed claims, read in the light of the specification, show nothing that involved invention.

Decree affirmed.

VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice, sat during the argument of this case, but died before the opinion was prepared.

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

STEPHENS, Associate Justice.

This is a suit brought under section 4915 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (35 U.S.C. § 63 [35 U.S.C.A. § 63]). It was based upon a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, which rejected Claims 1 to 7 of the appellant’s application for patent. The District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia decreed that the appellant was entitled to a patent on his application, Serial No. 705,642 filed January 8, 1934, entitled “Quick Reading Indicator,” the patent to include Claim 7, but not to include Claims 1 to 6, both inclusive.

No appeal was taken from that part of the decree which allowed Claim 7. The appellant abandoned Claims 3 and 4, and the appeal involves only Claims 1, 2, 5 and 6.

We have carefully considered the record and briefs. For the reasons set forth by the tribunals of the Patent Office, which we deem it unnecessary to repeat, we are convinced that the appealed claims, read in the light of the specification, show nothing that involved invention.

Decree affirmed.

VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice, sat during the argument of this case, but died before the opinion was prepared.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 F.2d 56, 68 App. D.C. 43, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 2720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kollsman-v-coe-cadc-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack