Schick Dry Shaver, Inc. v. R. H. Macy & Co.

112 F.2d 1007, 45 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 713, 1940 U.S. App. LEXIS 4469
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided June 26, 1940·No. No. 244·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appears to agree that in figure 11 of Fourniols th,c plate, as disclosed, was not of even thinness; and the disclosure was, indeed, at best very vague. This does not, however, change the result-in the least. A shear-plate with angular slots will not make “area” shaving possible though uniform thinness be substituted for the taper. There is no patentable advance unless the slots are also parallel. Hence it would not have been an invention to make Fourniols’ shear-plate of even thinness on both sides of the line 16 in figure 10.

The petitions are denied.

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

Schick Dry Shaver, Inc. v. R. H. Macy & Co., 112 F.2d 1007, 45 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 713, 1940 U.S. App. LEXIS 4469 (2d Cir. 1940).

112 F.2d 1007 (Schick Dry Shaver, Inc. v. R. H. Macy & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ozzello v. Peterson Builders, Inc.
743 F. Supp. 1302 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1990)
Terry May v. Transworld Drilling Co.
786 F.2d 1261 (Fifth Circuit, 1986)
Dynamet Technology, Inc. v. Dynamet Inc.
593 F.2d 1007 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1979)