STEWART

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• DeLONG Corp. v. Raymond Int'l, Inc., 622 F.2d 1135 (3d Cir. 1980)
  …G. 525, appellant is relying on the subject matter following ‘improvement’ for novelty. Novelty is the essence of and a key requirement for patentability. 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Cridlebaugh v. Rudolph, 131 F. 2d 795, 800 (3d Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 318 U.S. 779, 63 S.Ct. 855, 87 L.Ed. 1147 (1943). The language before the word “improvement” merely recites the prior art for which the Slemmons invention is designed as an improvement. The patentable claim of the Slemmons patent consists of that which follows t…
• Hansford P. Miller v. Jackson Avirom, 384 F.2d 319 (D.C. Cir. 1967)
  …830, 70 S.Ct. 58, 94 L.Ed. 505 (1949); Johnston v. Reily, supra note 9, 82 U.S.App.D.C. at 8, 160 F. 2d at 251; Koshorek v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 318 F. 2d 364, 371 (3d Cir. 1963); Stewart v. United States, 131 F. 2d 624 (5th Cir. 1942), cert. denied 318 U.S. 779, 63 S.Ct. 854, 87 L.Ed. 1147 (1943). . United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 159, 56 S.Ct. 391, 392, 80 L.Ed. 555 (1936). As we have pointed out, “[t]his is not a mere technicality but is of substance in the administration of the business of the…
• Guessefeldt v. McGRATH, 191 F.2d 639 (D.C. Cir. 1951)
  …th Section 9(a), it must be deemed to have superseded Section 9(a). Henderson v. Washington-Marlboro & Annapolis Motor Lines, 1942, 77 U.S.App.D.C. 26, 132 F. 2d 729, Certiorari denied, Washington-Marlboro & Annapolis Motor Lines v. Henderson, 1943, 318 U.S. 779, 63 S.Ct. 854, 87 L.Ed. 1147. Under Section 5(b) property of “any foreign country or national thereof” can be vested. Section 9(a) provides for the return of property to “Any person not an enemy or ally of [an] enemy”. Enemy as defined in Section 2…