Schreiber v. Coe

D.C. Circuit

Schreiber v. Coe

119 F.2d 459, 73 App. D.C. 392, 49 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 222, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 3758

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 14, 1941

DocketNo. 7644

StatusPublished

This text of 119 F.2d 459 (Schreiber v. Coe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schreiber v. Coe, 119 F.2d 459, 73 App. D.C. 392, 49 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 222, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 3758 (D.C. Cir. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

EDGERTON, Associate Justice.

This is a suit¹ to obtain a patent. The Patent Office and the District Court held that the appealed claims lack invention. The claims relate to a trackless-trolley bus which has two independent sources of power: (a) Two trolley poles which engage positive and negative trolley wires and (b) an internal combustion engine, electric generator, and motors. Switching means are provided so that electric power may be drawn from either source. Appellant’s bus is in successful operation.

Trackless trolleys are old. The concept of furnishing them with internal as well as external sources of power is not new. Strobel patent 1,188,570 combines, in a single vehicle, an internal source of power and electric current obtained through a trolley. Though Strobel relates primarily to locomotives, his specification states: “The invention is not limited to the employment of a steam engine as the prime mover. An internal combustion engine may be employed * * *. The invention also applies to signal transportation units, comparable to signal trolley cars. * * * A track is not essential. Trackless trolley vehicles may be employed, in connection with an overhead transmission wire.” Parsons patent 1,835,895 shows that the use of positive and negative, trolley wires is old. Appellant’s substitution of positive and negative wires, engaging two trolley poles, for Strobel’s single trolley wire and third rail seems obvious. It is unnecessary to consider the other references.

Affirmed.

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

EDGERTON, Associate Justice.

This is a suit¹ to obtain a patent. The Patent Office and the District Court held that the appealed claims lack invention. The claims relate to a trackless-trolley bus which has two independent sources of power: (a) Two trolley poles which engage positive and negative trolley wires and (b) an internal combustion engine, electric generator, and motors. Switching means are provided so that electric power may be drawn from either source. Appellant’s bus is in successful operation.

Trackless trolleys are old. The concept of furnishing them with internal as well as external sources of power is not new. Strobel patent 1,188,570 combines, in a single vehicle, an internal source of power and electric current obtained through a trolley. Though Strobel relates primarily to locomotives, his specification states: “The invention is not limited to the employment of a steam engine as the prime mover. An internal combustion engine may be employed * * *. The invention also applies to signal transportation units, comparable to signal trolley cars. * * * A track is not essential. Trackless trolley vehicles may be employed, in connection with an overhead transmission wire.” Parsons patent 1,835,895 shows that the use of positive and negative, trolley wires is old. Appellant’s substitution of positive and negative wires, engaging two trolley poles, for Strobel’s single trolley wire and third rail seems obvious. It is unnecessary to consider the other references.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 F.2d 459, 73 App. D.C. 392, 49 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 222, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 3758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schreiber-v-coe-cadc-1941.