Wilputte v. Coe

District of Columbia

Wilputte v. Coe

32 F. Supp. 717, 45 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 116, 1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3182

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedFebruary 7, 1940

DocketNo. 66871

StatusPublished

This text of 32 F. Supp. 717 (Wilputte v. Coe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wilputte v. Coe, 32 F. Supp. 717, 45 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 116, 1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3182 (D.D.C. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

LUHRING, Justice.

The court can not agree with the Patent Office tribunals in their rejection of the claims in issue.

The Pavitt invention permits fuel gas to be supplied to the multitudinous combustion flues of a coke oven battery at the precise predeterminable rates needed for regular operation without requiring the tedious and costly “trial and error” adjustments of the fuel gas supply connections to the different flues always necessary heretofore.

The application discloses coke oven combinations as specified by the claims in issue, which include replaceable members and which are new in the coke oven art, and which are not disclosed by the prior patents referred to by the defendant, Commissioner of Patents. Pavitt has solved the problem of the coke oven art by regulating, in a satisfactory manner, the supply of fuel gas to the different heating wall flues of a coke oven and particularly of a coke oven of the type referred to as an under-fired coke oven.

The finding will be in favor of the plaintiffs that they are entitled to receive a patent for the invention specified in claims 1 to 6 inclusive.

Counsel will prepare and submit findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by the rules.

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

LUHRING, Justice.

The court can not agree with the Patent Office tribunals in their rejection of the claims in issue.

The Pavitt invention permits fuel gas to be supplied to the multitudinous combustion flues of a coke oven battery at the precise predeterminable rates needed for regular operation without requiring the tedious and costly “trial and error” adjustments of the fuel gas supply connections to the different flues always necessary heretofore.

The application discloses coke oven combinations as specified by the claims in issue, which include replaceable members and which are new in the coke oven art, and which are not disclosed by the prior patents referred to by the defendant, Commissioner of Patents. Pavitt has solved the problem of the coke oven art by regulating, in a satisfactory manner, the supply of fuel gas to the different heating wall flues of a coke oven and particularly of a coke oven of the type referred to as an under-fired coke oven.

The finding will be in favor of the plaintiffs that they are entitled to receive a patent for the invention specified in claims 1 to 6 inclusive.

Counsel will prepare and submit findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by the rules.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 F. Supp. 717, 45 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 116, 1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilputte-v-coe-dcd-1940.