In re Hadden
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
ROBB, Associate Justice.
Appeal from a Patent Office decision refusing to allow applicant’s claim covering a design for a grandstand, on the ground that, although it may bo a manufacture, it is not an article of manufacture.
In his specification applicant thus characterizes his design: “The essential feature of the new design consists in the fact that the outer edge of each side of the grandstand is bowed outwardly from the lines of the side seats, as shown in Pig. 1, and is higher at the center, and decreases in height toward the ends, being substantially elliptical in said elevation, as shown…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Fond Du Lac County v. MaySupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- International Mausoleum Co. v. SievertCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1914
- Mygatt v. SchafferCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1914
- Crier v. InnesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1909
- Riter-Conley Mfg. Co. v. AikenCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1913
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- American Patents Development Corp. v. Carbice Corp. of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1930
- Park-In Theatres, Inc. v. RogersCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1942
- Application of John O. Hruby, JrCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1967
- McDonald v. HudspethDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 1941
- Pure Oil Co. v. RuthsatzDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 1939
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.