Wingfoot Corp. v. Coe

D.C. Circuit

Wingfoot Corp. v. Coe

124 F.2d 522, 75 U.S. App. D.C. 160, 52 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 153, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 2555

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 29, 1941

DocketNo. 7725

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 124 F.2d 522 (Wingfoot Corp. 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

Wingfoot Corp. v. Coe, 124 F.2d 522, 75 U.S. App. D.C. 160, 52 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 153, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 2555 (D.C. Cir. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit under R.S. § 4915, 35 U.S.C.A. § 63, to obtain a patent on Sebrell and Thies application No. 722,480, filed April 26, 1934, for a water-proofing composition adapted for coating flexible wrapping materials such as paper and cloth. The composition is made by reacting rubber in solution with chlorostannic acid or a halide of an amphoteric metal. Some of the claims use the name “Pliolite.” Some call for heat-sealing. The Patent Office and the District Court were of opinion that the appealed claims lack invention, in view of Geer patent No. 1,744,881, Gentile patent No. 1,804,-556, and an article by Sebrell, one of the applicants, and other authors, in Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, Vol. 19, p. 1033. We cannot say that their opinion is clearly wrong. Abbott v. Coe, 71 App.D.C. 195, 109 F.2d 449.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit under R.S. § 4915, 35 U.S.C.A. § 63, to obtain a patent on Sebrell and Thies application No. 722,480, filed April 26, 1934, for a water-proofing composition adapted for coating flexible wrapping materials such as paper and cloth. The composition is made by reacting rubber in solution with chlorostannic acid or a halide of an amphoteric metal. Some of the claims use the name “Pliolite.” Some call for heat-sealing. The Patent Office and the District Court were of opinion that the appealed claims lack invention, in view of Geer patent No. 1,744,881, Gentile patent No. 1,804,-556, and an article by Sebrell, one of the applicants, and other authors, in Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, Vol. 19, p. 1033. We cannot say that their opinion is clearly wrong. Abbott v. Coe, 71 App.D.C. 195, 109 F.2d 449.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 F.2d 522, 75 U.S. App. D.C. 160, 52 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 153, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 2555, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wingfoot-corp-v-coe-cadc-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack