Legal Opinion

Davies v. Coe

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Decided March 30, 1936No. 6592PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a decree in the Supreme Court of the District dismissing appellant’s bill, filed under section 4915, Rev.St. as amended (35 U.S.C.A. § 63), to authorize the issuance of a patent.

Appellant seeks a decree authorizing appellee to issue to him a patent for a superfluous hair remover. Claims 14 to 22, inclusive, are involved. Of these, 14 to 17, inclusive, are for an article of manufacture; and claims 18 to 22, inclusive, are for the method.

Claims 14 and 18, illustrative of the two groups, are here reproduced:

“14. An article of manufacture, - comprising a hair…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Carson v. American Smelting & Refining Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1925
  2. In re EkCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1927
  3. Wach v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1935

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. S. S. Kresge Co. v. DaviesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1940
  2. General Tire and Rubber Company v. WatsonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1960
  3. Kelley v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1938
  4. Mathieson Alkali Works, Inc. v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1938
  5. General Foods Corp. v. Perk Foods Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1968

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API