Wood v. Kahn

Second Circuit

Wood v. Kahn

198 F. 403, 117 C.C.A. 193, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1650

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided May 31, 1912·No. No. 190·Published·Cited by 20 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We agree fully with the opinion of Judge Hough that the method of sawing a diamond described and claimed does not involve invention. The fact that the object to be divided is of great value does not change what would otherwise be mechanical skill into invention. It might, as pointed out, require unusual courage for the operator .to risk such a process on so valuable an article, but courage is not patentable.

We deem it unnecessary to add anything to the opinion of the Circuit Court.

The decree is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We agree fully with the opinion of Judge Hough that the method of sawing a diamond described and claimed does not involve invention. The fact that the object to be divided is of great value does not change what would otherwise be mechanical skill into invention. It might, as pointed out, require unusual courage for the operator .to risk such a process on so valuable an article, but courage is not patentable.

We deem it unnecessary to add anything to the opinion of the Circuit Court.

The decree is affirmed.

Wood v. Kahn, 198 F. 403, 117 C.C.A. 193, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1650 (2d Cir. 1912).

Pincite

198 F. 403 (Wood v. Kahn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related