Marine v. Coe

119 F.2d 11, 73 App. D.C. 260, 48 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 504, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 3628
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedFebruary 24, 1941
DocketNo. 7618
StatusPublished

This text of 119 F.2d 11 (Marine 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
Marine v. Coe, 119 F.2d 11, 73 App. D.C. 260, 48 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 504, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 3628 (D.C. Cir. 1941).

Opinion

MILLER, Associate Justice.

This suit was brought under the provisions of Section 4915, R.S.1 Appellant contends that he is entitled to the issue of a patent on claims which describe a vehicle door latch construction and a vehicle door, having a slidable closure therein with a latch located below the said closure when in lowered position, and with means for operating the said latch extending upwardly between said closure and the sides of the door. The four claims which are involved are set out in the margin.2 The claimed invention is intended to be used in the doors of automobiles.

The Patent Office and the District Court decided that the claims involved no invention. Appellant contends that they define novelty, utility and invention, which are not negatived by the references relied upon by the lower tribunals. We are satisfied that no invention is shown; consequently, in our view, the determination of the District Court was correct.

Affirmed.

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

Related

§ 63
35 U.S.C. § 63

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
119 F.2d 11, 73 App. D.C. 260, 48 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 504, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 3628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marine-v-coe-cadc-1941.