Johnston v. Davenport Brick & Tile Co.
District Court, S.D. Iowa
In Equity. Suit by David S. Johnston against the Davenport Brick & Tile Company. On final hearing.
1Opinion of the Court
WADE, District Judge.
There can be no serious question that the patent issued to the plaintiff is valid. It is the contention of the defendant that it is extremely limited in its effect, because (a) of the language used,-and because (b) -of the proceedings' in the Patent Office. So far as the proceedings in the Patent Office are concerned, I do not think that the plaintiff is estopped from claiming the full benefit of all language used in'his claims.
[1] The effect of rejection of claims and amendment thereof is fully discussed in the cases cited by counsel for the defendant, arid especially in…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- New York Scaffolding Co. v. WhitneyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1915
- Baxter v. York Realty Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1908
- Dunker v. City of Des MoinesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1912
- Wormley v. Board of SupervisorsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1899
3Cited by8 opinions
- Harvey Construction Co. v. ParmeleSupreme Court of Iowa · 1962
- City of Gary v. Gary Oakhill Cemetery Ass'nIndiana Supreme Court · 1917
- Irrigated Valleys Land Co. v. AltmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
- Wheatley v. Rex-Hide, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1939
- In re the Accounting of HockenberyNew York Surrogate's Court · 1947
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.