Krauth v. Carter-Crume Co.
202 F. 217, 120 C.C.A. 617, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1016
This text of 202 F. 217 (Krauth v. Carter-Crume Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Krauth v. Carter-Crume Co., 202 F. 217, 120 C.C.A. 617, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1016 (2d Cir. 1913).
Opinion
While not inclined to give as much importance as Judge Hazel does to the action of the Patent Office, we agree with him that, in view of the state of the art, neither, side hinging nor an engagement of the parts effected either by a flexible flange or by a flexible hinge constitute invention.
The decree is affirmed, with costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
202 F. 217, 120 C.C.A. 617, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1016, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krauth-v-carter-crume-co-ca2-1913.