Tappan v. Bean

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

This text of 50 F. 103 (Tappan v. Bean) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
50 F. 103, 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tappan-v-bean-circtedpa-1891.