Recold Corporation, a Corporation, and Lester K. Quick v. David A. Nurse, Dba David A. Nurse Company, and Hugh Robinson & Sons, a Corporation

Ninth Circuit

Recold Corporation, a Corporation, and Lester K. Quick v. David A. Nurse, Dba David A. Nurse Company, and Hugh Robinson & Sons, a Corporation

371 F.2d 562, 152 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 297

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 4, 1967

Docket19833

StatusPublished

This text of 371 F.2d 562 (Recold Corporation, a Corporation, and Lester K. Quick v. David A. Nurse, Dba David A. Nurse Company, and Hugh Robinson & Sons, a Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Recold Corporation, a Corporation, and Lester K. Quick v. David A. Nurse, Dba David A. Nurse Company, and Hugh Robinson & Sons, a Corporation, 371 F.2d 562, 152 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 297 (9th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a judgment holding invalid Letters Patent No. 2,-953,906, issued to L. K. Quick on September 27, 1960, relating “to improvements in the manner of returning gaseous and liquid refrigerant to the compressor of (refrigeration) apparatus during hot gas defrosting operations.”

We have examined the record and agree with the district court that the patented combination does not reflect invention over the prior art. The judgment is therefore affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a judgment holding invalid Letters Patent No. 2,-953,906, issued to L. K. Quick on September 27, 1960, relating “to improvements in the manner of returning gaseous and liquid refrigerant to the compressor of (refrigeration) apparatus during hot gas defrosting operations.”

We have examined the record and agree with the district court that the patented combination does not reflect invention over the prior art. The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

371 F.2d 562, 152 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/recold-corporation-a-corporation-and-lester-k-quick-v-david-a-nurse-ca9-1967.