Legal Opinion
Lopulco Systems, Inc. v. Bonnot Co.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided February 21, 1928No. 3644PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
In the final analysis, the decisive questions involved in this ease are, first, was the invention of the claim disclosed in the original specification? and, second, if not, can the invention of the claim, in use for two years before an amendment disclosing it-for the first time, be patented by grafting it onto the original, nondisclosing application?
The duty of careful scrutiny in such eases was referred to by this court in Hestonville v. McDuffee (C. C. A.) 185 F. 802, where it was said: “when, therefore, a patentee, seven years after his original application” —in…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Railway Co. v. SaylesSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Corbin Cabinet Lock Co. v. Eagle Lock Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Hestonville, M. & F. Pass. Ry. Co. v. McDuffeeCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1910
3Cited by7 opinions
- Insulite Co. v. Reserve Supply Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1932
- Reynolds Metals Co. v. Continental Group, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1981
- Bloodhart v. LevernierCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1933
- Akro Agate Co. v. Master Marble Co.District Court, N.D. West Virginia · 1937
- Jones v. Freed-Eisemann Radio Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.