Legal Opinion
L. Sonneborn Sons, Inc. v. Coe
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Decided March 20, 1939No. 7126PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MILLER, Associate Justice.
The Patent Office rejected the claims in suit on the ground that they showed no invention over the prior art. Appellant, as assignee of the applicants, Silverman and Kessler, sued under Section 4915, R.S., 35 U.S.C.A. § 63. The lower court found that: “2. The Silverman and Kessler application discloses a process of treating a lubricating oil so as to lower the temperature point at which the oil ceases to flow (‘the pour point’), said process consisting in adding to the oil a small amount of a metallic soap of a solid fatty acid, such as aluminum stearate, and an…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Diamond Rubber Co. of New York v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Atlantic Works v. BradySupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Mast, Foos & Co. v. Stover Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Altoona Publix Theatres, Inc. v. American Tri-Ergon Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
- DeForest Radio Co. v. General Electric Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Radtke Patents Corporation v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1941
- Floridin Co. v. Attapulgus Clay Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1942
- Application of Philip S. Fay and Fred J. FoxCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
- American Steel & Wire Co. of New Jersey v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1939
- Potts v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1944
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.