LEBOLD ET AL.
v.
MARZALL
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 device lacked invention over the prior art, despite utility and commercial success.
Appellant sought reissue of a patent for a beverage bottle carrier. The district court dismissed the complaint after trial, finding the device lacked …
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 Utility cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is from a judgment of the District Court dismissing, after trial, a complaint filed under Rev.Stat. § 4916 (1875), as amended 45 Stat. 732 (1928), 35 U.S.C.A. § 64, for reissue of a patent on a beverage bottle carrier, the handle of which fits below the tops of the bottles in the carrier. In view of a new reference1 overlooked when appellant’s patent was granted, the court held that the device lacked invention over the prior art. D.C.1951, 100 F.Supp. 867. This ruling accorded with decisions of the Examiner and the Board of Appeals of the Patent Office. The foregoing determinations must stand unless they are not reasonable on the evidence or are clearly erroneous. Standard Oil Development Co. v. Marzall, 1950, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 210, 181 F. 2d 280; Radtke Patents Corporation v. Coe, 1941, 74 App.D.C. 251, 122 F. 2d 937; Abbott v. Coe, 1940, 71 App.D.C. 195, 109 F. 2d 449.
Appellant relies upon the utility and the commercial success of the article. But these factors alone are not controlling. There must be the added elements of novelty and creative genius. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 1950, 340 U.S. 147, 71 S.Ct. 127, 95 L.Ed. 162; Atlantic Works v. Brady, 1883, 107 U.S. 192, 2 S.Ct. 225, 27 L.Ed. 438; Gilbert v. Marzall, 1950, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 182 F. 2d 389.
The judgment is
Affirmed.
. The Lyons Patent No. 2,296,937, September 29, 1942. See also Himes Patent No. 2,273,266, February 17, 1942.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1950)
- Atlantic Works v. Brady, 107 U.S. 192 (U.S. 1882)
- Abbott v. COE, 109 F.2d 449 (D.C. Cir. 1939)
- Standard Oil Dev. Co. v. Marzall, 181 F.2d 280 (D.C. Cir. 1950)
- Radtke Patents Corp. v. COE, 122 F.2d 937 (D.C. Cir. 1941)
- Gilbert v. Marzall, 182 F.2d 389 (D.C. Cir. 1950)