Paine v. Snowden
This text of 46 F. 189 (Paine v. Snowden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
We cannot sustain the complainant’s patent. In view of the prior state of the art his “design for chair-backs” does not in our estimation show patentable novelty. In appearance, or effect upon the eye, (which alone is involved) the “design” is scarcely distinguishable from Ohmer’s chair-backs. The similarity seems greater than that between Gorham & Co.’s “design for spoon and fork handles” and White’s involved in the suit of Gorham v. White, 14 Wall. 511,—where the court found nothing to distinguish the one from the other. If the similarity was less, however, we would have to hold that in view of the old chair-backs shown by the record, including those of Ohmer, the complainant’s design shows no invention. A further discussion of the subject is deemed unnecessary. For the reasons stated the bill must be dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
46 F. 189, 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paine-v-snowden-circtedpa-1891.