SCHLESINGER

v.

GATES, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY

Citator

Cited By

• Gonzalez v. Freeman, 334 F.2d 570 (D.C. Cir. 1964)
  …57). See also United States v. Aarons, 310 F. 2d 341, 345-348 (2d Cir. 1962) (criticizing the Botch case but only on its holding as to actual notice). . In Schlesinger v. Gates, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 355, 249 F. 2d 111 (1957) (per curiam), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 939, 78 S.Ct. 428, 2 L.Ed.2d 421 (1958), this court found debarment specifically authorized by statute which was implemented by regulations. The regulations involved in Schlesinger provided specifically for notice and opportunity to present evidence, an…
• Tights, Inc. v. Acme-McCRARY Corp., 541 F.2d 1047 (4th Cir. 1976)
  …also relevant to the question of non-obviousness since it indicates the inventive nature of the product. Shaw v. E. B. & A. C. Whiting Co., 417 F. 2d 1097, 1105 (2d Cir. 1969); Otto v. Koppers Co., 246 F. 2d 789, 799-800 (4th Cir. 1957), cert. den. 355 U.S. 939, 78 S.Ct. 427, 2 L.Ed.2d 420 (1958). Conclusion as to Obviousness We, of course, recognize that the incorporation of a U-shaped seam into a circularly knit garment may appear a simple matter, a fact which defendants make much of. Yet, the simplici…
• Monroe Auto Equip. Co. v. Superior Indus., Inc., 332 F.2d 473 (9th Cir. 1964)
  …ation which resulted in the McIntyre ’955 patent. Exs. 42, 45 and A.) Thus, says the appellant, he must have known of all prior art.12 Our attention is directed to two cases: Otto v. Hoppers Co., Inc., et al., 4 Cir. 1957, 246 F. 2d 789, cert. den. 355 U.S. 939, 78 S.Ct. 427, 2 L.Ed.2d 420, Mechanical Ice Tray Corp. v. Abraham & Strause, Inc., E.D.N.Y.1940, 31 F.Supp. 938. We find nothing in the second case to support appellant’s theory. The Hoppers case involved a patent in suit “issued upon an applicatio…