BELL, DBA CRESCENDO PUBLISHING CO.

v.

COMBINED REGISTRY CO.

Citator

Cited By

• N. v. Maatschappij Voor Industriele Waarden, 590 F.2d 415 (2d Cir. 1978)
  …ring to anything other than the teaching of the patent. We do not have a case where the Westinghouse patent was limited to a single commercial embodiment or “mode”. Compare MacLaren v. B-I-W Group, Inc., 535 F. 2d 1367, 1373 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1001, 97 S.Ct. 531, 50 L.Ed.2d 612 (1976); CTS Corp. v. Piher International Corp., 527 F. 2d 95, 100 (7th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 978, 96 S.Ct. 1485, 47 L.Ed.2d 748 (1976). . Whitney’s explanation of the difference between the two systems, un…
• Philip v. Mayer, 635 F.2d 1056 (2d Cir. 1980)
  …tter how useful and original the invention it protects, if the applicant for the patent claims the invention so broadly that it encompasses already established prior art. Maclaren v. B-I-W Group Inc., 535 F. 2d 1367, 1372-73 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1001, 97 S.Ct. 531, 50 L.Ed.2d 612 (1976); Bishop and Babcock Mfg. Co. v. Fedders-Quigan Corp., 270 F. 2d 102, 106 (2d Cir. 1959); Foxboro Co. v. Taylor Instrument Co., 157 F. 2d 226, 232 (2d Cir. 1946), cert. denied, 329 U.S. 800, 67 S.Ct. 494, 91 L.Ed.…
• Eutectic Corp. v. Metco, Inc., 579 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1978)
  …rolling, is an indication of significant and non-obvious improvement in the art. See International Nickel Co. v. United States, 175 U.S.P.Q. 209, 213 (Ct.Cl. 1972). See also Maclaren v. B-I-W Group Inc., 535 F. 2d 1367, 1376 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1001, 97 S.Ct. 531, 50 L.Ed.2d 612 (1976). . In this regard the court took note of some expert testimony that while there would be an exothermic reaction in the spray stream, it would be an oxidation reaction between the aluminum and oxygen in the air,…