Legal Opinion

Burgess Battery Co. v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided June 5, 1944No. 44695Published

1Opinion of the Court

WHITAKER, Judge.

Plaintiff, the assignee of. the Norris patent, 1,726,500, sues to recover damages for its alleged infringement. The defendant defends upon the ground, among others, that the alleged invention was anticipated by prior art and knowledge, and, therefore, was lacking in patentable novelty.

*615The patent is on sound-deadening construction. It consists, briefly, of a sound-absorbing backing, such as felt or wool, covered and held in place by a thin membrane of sheet steel, tin, veneered wood, or similar sound-reflecting material, punctured at intervals to permit the passage of the sound…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Becket v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1938
  2. In re CrossCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1932
  3. C. F. Burgess Laboratories, Inc. v. Coast Insulating Corp.District Court, S.D. California · 1939
  4. Freyn Engineering Co. v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1935

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

Powered by the Exa API