Richmond Screw Anchor Co. v. Superior Concrete Accessories, Inc.

Second Circuit

Richmond Screw Anchor Co. v. Superior Concrete Accessories, Inc.

256 F.2d 232

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 3, 1958

DocketNo. 316, Docket 24868

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 256 F.2d 232 (Richmond Screw Anchor Co. v. Superior Concrete Accessories, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richmond Screw Anchor Co. v. Superior Concrete Accessories, Inc., 256 F.2d 232 (2d Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

GALSTON, District Judge.

This patent suit presents no unusual difficulty. The alleged invention is for a mechanical combination of parts which were well known in the field. Utility is acknowledged, and the critical question is whether invention is disclosed.

Judge Dimock carefully reviewed the prior art. It must be understood that the prior art, even if embodied in the file wrapper and presumably considered by the examiner in the Patent Office, involved only an ex parte presentation, whereas at the trial the examination of the witnesses on the important prior art patents such as the Schenck patent, No. 2,292,548, the Symons patent, No. 2,162,-869, and the Parmenter patent, No. 2,235,442, disclosed that the alleged invention of the patentee was “obvious” to the skilled mechanic.

We affirm on Judge Dimock’s opinion (153 F.Supp. 38), which includes findings of fact as well as conclusions of law.

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

GALSTON, District Judge.

This patent suit presents no unusual difficulty. The alleged invention is for a mechanical combination of parts which were well known in the field. Utility is acknowledged, and the critical question is whether invention is disclosed.

Judge Dimock carefully reviewed the prior art. It must be understood that the prior art, even if embodied in the file wrapper and presumably considered by the examiner in the Patent Office, involved only an ex parte presentation, whereas at the trial the examination of the witnesses on the important prior art patents such as the Schenck patent, No. 2,292,548, the Symons patent, No. 2,162,-869, and the Parmenter patent, No. 2,235,442, disclosed that the alleged invention of the patentee was “obvious” to the skilled mechanic.

We affirm on Judge Dimock’s opinion (153 F.Supp. 38), which includes findings of fact as well as conclusions of law.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 F.2d 232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richmond-screw-anchor-co-v-superior-concrete-accessories-inc-ca2-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack