Aeration Processes, Inc. v. Walter Kidde & Co.

FRANK, Circuit Judge.

1. We cannot agree with the district judge that this patent is valid. To the facts reported in his opinion (77 F.Supp. 647), we must add one important set of facts that he failed to note: As the patent states, the application, filed September 26, 1935, on which the patent issued, was a “continuation-in-part” of an earlier “co-pending application,” filed February 8, 1934. Getz abandoned the earlier application but relies on its filing-date as the effective date for the patent in suit.

In that earlier application, he asserted that his invention consisted of the aeration of…