Legal Opinion

Charles N. Cresap v. Chemplast, Inc

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided April 16, 1963No. 14155_1PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

The issue presented for our determination on this appeal is the validity of U.S. Patent No. 2,929,109. An examination of the record convinces us that the patent discloses nothing of patentable novelty. It seems, mechanical ingenuity aside, to •contain nothing not adequately shown by the prior art. We conclude that it would not serve any useful purpose to review the evidence or the arguments of the parties here. Nothing can be added of consequence to the carefully prepared opinion of Judge Meaney in the court below. 216 F.Supp. 870. The judgment will be affirmed.

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Cresap v. Chemplast, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1962

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Builders Service Corp. v. Planning & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
  2. Continental Can Company, Inc. v. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1969
  3. Continental Can Company, Inc. v. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1969