Roehr v. Bliss

Second Circuit

Roehr v. Bliss

102 F. 692, 42 C.C.A. 593, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4593

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 24, 1900

DocketNo. 161

StatusPublished

This text of 102 F. 692 (Roehr v. Bliss) 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

Roehr v. Bliss, 102 F. 692, 42 C.C.A. 593, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4593 (2d Cir. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It would serve no useful purpose to enlarge upon the opinions expressed by Judge Shipman and Judge Townsend when the patent in suit was before them respectively. 82 Fed. 445; 98 Fed. 120. We concur in the views taken by each of them, and entertain no doubt of the invalidity of the patent. It could not involve any invention to make a complete door frame in two parts. All that was necessary to be done by the carpenter was to make a complete frame, and then divide the jamb longitudinally into two sections by the saw. It could not involve any invention to join the two sections together again. Any carpenter exercising the common skill of the calling would be able to do this, and, if he wanted to make the interlocking jamb, which is a subordinate feature of the alleged invention as specified in some of the claims,, he would have known how to do so by tonguing and grooving the respective faces of the jamb. The decree is affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

It would serve no useful purpose to enlarge upon the opinions expressed by Judge Shipman and Judge Townsend when the patent in suit was before them respectively. 82 Fed. 445; 98 Fed. 120. We concur in the views taken by each of them, and entertain no doubt of the invalidity of the patent. It could not involve any invention to make a complete door frame in two parts. All that was necessary to be done by the carpenter was to make a complete frame, and then divide the jamb longitudinally into two sections by the saw. It could not involve any invention to join the two sections together again. Any carpenter exercising the common skill of the calling would be able to do this, and, if he wanted to make the interlocking jamb, which is a subordinate feature of the alleged invention as specified in some of the claims,, he would have known how to do so by tonguing and grooving the respective faces of the jamb. The decree is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 F. 692, 42 C.C.A. 593, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roehr-v-bliss-ca2-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack