Legal Opinion
Rembert v. Coe
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Decided June 14, 1943No. 8185PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MILLER, Associate Justice.
The Patent Office denied the application of Rembert and Jenkins for a patent .upon a cementitious composition and article, and for the method of making them. In a proceeding under Revised Statutes, Section 4915,1 the District Court decided that nothing recited in appellants’ claims amounts to an invention over the prior art; and dismissed the complaint.
On this appeal, the utility and commercial success of the product were urged in support of invention. These factors were conceded in the Patent Office; and, of course, are not sufficient in themselves to require the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Kirsch Mfg. Co. v. Gould Mersereau Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1925
- Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1938
- Ruben Condenser Co. v. Copeland Refrigeration Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1936
- L. Sonneborn Sons, Inc. v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1939
- Morrison v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1941
3Cited by6 opinions
- Potts v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1944
- Blanchard v. OomsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1946
- Town v. WillisDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 1949
- Application of BlondiauCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1950
- Asseff v. KingslandDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1949
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.