Tappan v. Bean

50 F. 103, 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1666

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The bill must be dismissed. If the patent is valid, the history of the art before us shows that its scope must be confined within limits so narrow as to exclude the respondent’s device. In our judgment, however, the patent is not valid. The alleged invention described seems to be entirely wanting in patentable novelty.

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

Tappan v. Bean, 50 F. 103, 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1666 (circtedpa 1891).

50 F. 103 (Tappan v. Bean) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.