HANNER

v.

TEXAS

Citator

Cited By

• Smith v. Acme Gen. Corp., 614 F.2d 1086 (6th Cir. 1980)
  …n the elements of the idea are commonly known but the combination in which the inventor has arranged the configuration contributes new knowledge to the specified field of art. Nickola v. Peterson, 580 F. 2d 898, 910-911 (6th Cir. 1978) cert. denied, 440 U.S. 961, 99 S.Ct. 1504, 59 L.Ed.2d 774 (1979); Philips Industries v. State Stove & Mfg. Co., Inc., 522 F. 2d 1137 (6th Cir. 1975). However, courts have scrutinized very carefully combination patents to avoid a flood of the garden-variety but not patentable…

  ← 1 / 4 →
• Dickey-John Corp. v. Int'l Tapetronics Corp. & Field Elecs., Inc., 710 F.2d 329 (7th Cir. 1983)
  …forming the only function that they ever could perform, e.g. Safety Car Heating & Lighting Co. v. General Electric Co., 155 F. 2d 937, 939 (2d Cir.1946) (L. Hand, X); accord Nickola v. Peterson, 580 F. 2d 898, 912 n. 22 (6th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 961, 99 S.Ct. 1504, 59 L.Ed.2d 774 (1979) (“an electrical capacitor must exhibit capacitance”)) would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, e.g. Application of Warner, 379 F. 2d 1011, 1016 (Cust. & Pat.App.1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S…

  ← 1 / 2 →