Peterson v. Coe

D.C. Circuit

Peterson v. Coe

124 F.2d 522, 75 U.S. App. D.C. 160, 52 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 152, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 2554

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 29, 1941

DocketNo. 7811

StatusPublished

This text of 124 F.2d 522 (Peterson 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

Peterson v. Coe, 124 F.2d 522, 75 U.S. App. D.C. 160, 52 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 152, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 2554 (D.C. Cir. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit under R.S. § 4915, 35 U.S.C. A. § 63, to obtain a patent on a mattress. Appellant’s application discloses, in the opposite sides of an inner-spring mattress ventilated by grommets, padding of different heat-conducting characteristics. The more efficient conductor is to be placed next the sleeper in summer, and the less efficient in winter. The prior Nelson mattress, patent No. 341,387, also used two different materials, and Nelson recited that “the cotton may be used for sleeping on in cold weather, and the hair side in hot weather.” Farrow patent No. 1,205,135 shows an innerspring mattress ventilated by grommets. Whether or not the unventilated Nelson construction was an effective summer-and-winter mattress, we cannot say that appellant’s device shows invention over these references. It is therefore unnecessary to consider others, including Odets, No. 1,973,-651.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit under R.S. § 4915, 35 U.S.C. A. § 63, to obtain a patent on a mattress. Appellant’s application discloses, in the opposite sides of an inner-spring mattress ventilated by grommets, padding of different heat-conducting characteristics. The more efficient conductor is to be placed next the sleeper in summer, and the less efficient in winter. The prior Nelson mattress, patent No. 341,387, also used two different materials, and Nelson recited that “the cotton may be used for sleeping on in cold weather, and the hair side in hot weather.” Farrow patent No. 1,205,135 shows an innerspring mattress ventilated by grommets. Whether or not the unventilated Nelson construction was an effective summer-and-winter mattress, we cannot say that appellant’s device shows invention over these references. It is therefore unnecessary to consider others, including Odets, No. 1,973,-651.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 F.2d 522, 75 U.S. App. D.C. 160, 52 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 152, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 2554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peterson-v-coe-cadc-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack