WABASH APPLIANCE CORP. ET AL.

v.

GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.

Citator

Cited By

• Hobbs v. Wis. Power & Light Co. & William Powell Co., 250 F.2d 100 (7th Cir. 1957)
  …rior art. This court has held that a change of degree is not patentable, Simmons Co. v. Superior Felt & Bedding Co., 7 Cir., 1939, 107 F. 2d 536, but see Peerless Equipment Co. v. W. H. Miner, Inc., 7 Cir., 1938, 93 F. 2d 98, 103, certiorari denied 303 U.S. 641, 58 S.Ct. 611, 82 L.Ed. 1101, where the court points out: “It is * * * true that the mere carrying forward of the original thought with a change only in form, proportion or degree, in doing the same thing the same way by substantially the same means…
• Seligson v. Goldsmith, 128 F.2d 977 (2d Cir. 1942)
  …68, certiorari denied 201 U.S. 646, 26 S.Ct. 761, 50 L.Ed. 903; In re Goldman, 1 Cir., 62 F. 2d 421; In re Schoenberg, 2 Cir., 70 F. 2d 321; In re J. L. Marks & Co., 7 Cir., 85 F. 2d 392; Danish v. Sofranski, 2 Cir., 93 F. 2d 424, certiorari denied 303 U.S. 641, 58 S.Ct. 610, 82 L.Ed. 1101.…
• Brune v. Fraidin, 149 F.2d 325 (4th Cir. 1945)
  …se of the long time that elapsed, seventeen months, between the adjudication and the hearing on the petition, the presumption lost its force and effect, and the petition was dismissed. In Danish v. Sofranski, 2 Cir., 93 F. 2d 424, certiorari denied, 303 U.S. 641, 58 S.Ct. 610, 82 L.Ed. 1101, where there was a lapse of two years, it was held that the presumption of continuing possession was dispelled by the long delay. But there is a second reason why there should be no turnover order in this case. In Oriel…