Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Application of Marlan E. Bourns

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided February 18, 1958No. Patent Appeal 6318Published

1ConcurrenceO’Connell, Judge

I fully agree with the majority of the court that the design here involved is lacking in patentable merit. It is elementary that invention must be present in order to justify the granting of a design patent and that the standard of invention is not lower in the case of design patents than in others. In re Rousso, 222 F.2d 729, 42 C.C.P.A., Patents, 910, and cases there cited.

In our decision in In re Stover, 146 F.2d 299, 32 C.C.P.A., Patents, 823, we pointed out that a patent may properly issue only where the faculty of invention is exercised in the combining of prior art features to produce…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. In Re StoverCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1944
  3. In the Matter of the Application of Jacques RoussoCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1955
  4. In re BergerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1956
  5. United Merchants & Manufacturers, Inc. v. Sidney Blumenthal & Co.District Court, D. Rhode Island · 1957

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

Powered by the Exa API