MARINE
v.
COE, COM'R OF PATENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the claims described no invention, affirming the District Court's decision.
Appellant sought a patent for a vehicle door latch construction and a vehicle door with a slidable closure and an operating latch. The Patent Office a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Patent Claims Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
This suit was brought under the provisions of Section 4915, R.S.1 Appellant contends that he is entitled to the issue of a patent on claims which describe a vehicle door latch construction and a vehicle door, having a slidable closure therein with a latch located below the said closure when in lowered position, and with means for operating the said latch extending upwardly between said closure and the sides of the door. The four claims which are involved are set out in the margin.2 The claimed invention is intended to be used in the doors of automobiles.
The Patent Office and the District Court decided that the claims involved no invention. Appellant contends that they define novelty, utility and invention, which are not negatived by the references relied upon by the lower tribunals. We are satisfied that no invention is shown; consequently, in our view, the determination of the District Court was correct.
Affirmed.