Legal Opinion
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Coe
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided November 29, 1943No. 8282PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
EDGERTON, Associate Justice.
The District Court dismissed appellant’s bill to obtain a patent1 on claims which the Patent Office had rejected for want of invention. The court found that the claims “are too broad and do not define an invention over the prior art.”
The claims relate to “a sheet of wallpaper” and a method of making it. They involve printing on a single sheet bands of various colors, drying them, and then printing over them a common design which may or may not be in various colors. The claims do not mention samples or sample books. But the specification states that the “invention *…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Altoona Publix Theatres, Inc. v. American Tri-Ergon Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Abbott v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1939
- Kirsch Mfg. Co. v. Gould Mersereau Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1925
- Smokador Mfg. Co. v. Tubular Products Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1929
- Fowler & Wolfe Mfg. Co. v. McCrum-Howell Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1914
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Lewis A. Siegel v. Robert C. Watson, Commissioner of PatentsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1959
- Tipper Tie, Inc. v. Hercules Fasteners, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1955
- Smith v. Kingsland, Commissioner of PatentsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1949
- Lewis A. Siegel v. Robert C. Watson, Commissioner of PatentsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1959