Home/D. New Jersey/Ray v. Buhot

Ray v. Buhot

40 F.2d 85
CourtDistrict Court, D. New Jersey
DecidedJanuary 15, 1930
StatusPublished

This text of 40 F.2d 85 (Ray v. Buhot) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ray v. Buhot, 40 F.2d 85 (D.N.J. 1930).

Opinion

CLARK, District Judge.

The court is somewhat embarrassed in the preparation of any opinion in this case. In 1927 a suit was brought before it upon a patent for a process of stopping leaks in the radiators of internal combustion engines by means of a preparation compounded of gambier and alcohol. 22 F.(2d) 214. After) the most thoughtful consideration of which he was capable, the writer of these presents held the patent invalid. Perhaps because it was his first, the subsequent opinion was also the result of long and careful study. In the course thereof, certain criticisms of the Patent Office and the patent system as at present constituted were included. The author of this maiden effort was pleased by numerous written expressions of commendation received from members of the patent bar in various parts of the country who" had read it when reported. His human vanity was further fed by a laudatory note printed in the American Law Notes for the month of May, 1928, page one (1), and reprinted in the New Jersey Law Journal for the month of June, 1928, page 164.

This pleasure was short-lived and this pride went indeed very shortly before a fall. Two months after the argument of the case in the Circuit Court of Appeals, a reversal was filed (one judge dissenting) and is to be found reported in Tolfree v. Wetzler, 25 F. (2d) 553. This court is, then, placed upon the horns of thjs dilemma. The writing of no opinion might be interpreted by the learned judges of the Circuit Court of Appeals, to whom we owe both personal and official allegiance, as Achilles sulking in his tent. On the other hand, any expression of our thoughts might be understood as an unregenerate adherence to our own views, rather than a properly humble acceptance of theirs. It is with some hesitation, therefore, that we have decided to state briefly our reasons for believing that the patent in suit is invalid, even under the opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals above cited.

The Ray patent (1,613,055) was secured on January 4,1927, and is for a composition [86]*86(not a process) for stopping leaks in hot water circulating systems. Its ingredients, as set forth in, the specifications of the patent, are as follows: Powdered aluminum, 15 per cent.; flaxseed meal, 60 per cent.; sulphur, 5 per cent.; soap, 20 per cent. The court had occasion, in the opinion for which it has apologized, to comment on the ineffective filing and indexing system in the Patent Office. That comment receives support in the fact that in the eight prior art patents offered in the principal ease are included six patents not discovered either by counsel or the court in the previous ease. We are repeating the table of patents offered in the case of Tolfree v. Wetzler, they being of course part of the common knowledge, if not direct anticipations. The additional patents offered in this case are appended thereafter in the same tabular method of arrangement.

[87]*87 f95Ugn8eGxLaGxFkPr8lwrmcfOX

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

Related

Tolfree v. Wetzler
22 F.2d 214 (D. New Jersey, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
40 F.2d 85, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ray-v-buhot-njd-1930.