Legal Opinion
In re Taylor
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Decided January 2, 1923No. 1509PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SMYTH, Chief Justice.
Taylor applied for a patent on a method of making one-piece pleated paper drinking cups. His application was denied. There are nine claims in it.
The Office based its decision on the -ground that the claims .were only paraphrases of the claims of a patent issued to Taylor some six years before. In disposing of the matter the commissioner compared claim 7 of the application with claim 25 of the patent, and said that their words were almost identical in meaning. Answering this, Taylor admits that a consideration of the two claims will suffice for the purpose of settling the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Boyden Power-Brake Co. v. Westinghouse Westinghouse v. Boyden Power-Brake Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Miller v. Eagle Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Century Electric Co. v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1911
- Mosler Safe & Lock Co. v. MoslerSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Carson v. American Smelting & Refining Co.District Court, W.D. Washington · 1923
- Sekulow v. 11th & F St. Valet, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1947
- In re GlassCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1973
- Dysert v. Ring Management Co.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1949