Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

    Charles N. Cresap v. Chemplast, Inc, 316 F.2d 920, 3rd Cir. (1963)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The court affirmed the lower court's decision that U.S. Patent No. 2,929,109 was invalid due to lack of novelty. The record showed that the patent disclosed nothing novel and contained only what was adequately demonstrated in prior art. The court concluded that reviewing evidence or arguments would serve no useful purpose, as the lower court's opinion thoroughly addressed the issues in the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Charles N. Cresap v. Chemplast, Inc, 316 F.2d 920, 3rd Cir. (1963)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views1 page
    The court affirmed the lower court's decision that U.S. Patent No. 2,929,109 was invalid due to lack of novelty. The record showed that the patent disclosed nothing novel and contained only what was adequately demonstrated in prior art. The court concluded that reviewing evidence or arguments would serve no useful purpose, as the lower court's opinion thoroughly addressed the issues in the case.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1963-04-16 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 316 F.2d 920 Docket: 14155_1

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The court affirmed the lower court's decision that U.S. Patent No. 2,929,109 was invalid due to lack of novelty. The record showed that the patent disclosed nothing novel and contained only what was adequately demonstrated in prior art. The court concluded that reviewing evidence or arguments would serve no useful purpose, as the lower court's opinion thoroughly addressed the issues in the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    4 views1 page

    Charles N. Cresap v. Chemplast, Inc, 316 F.2d 920, 3rd Cir. (1963)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The court affirmed the lower court's decision that U.S. Patent No. 2,929,109 was invalid due to lack of novelty. The record showed that the patent disclosed nothing novel and contained only what was adequately demonstrated in prior art. The court concluded that reviewing evidence or arguments would serve no useful purpose, as the lower court's opinion thoroughly addressed the issues in the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 1

    316 F.

    2d 920
    137 U.S.P.Q. 392

    Charles N. CRESAP, Appellant,


    v.
    CHEMPLAST, INC.
    No. 14155.

    United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.


    Argued March 7, 1963.
    Decided April 16, 1963.

    Logan Cresap, New York City (William A. Fasolo, Hackensack, N.J., on


    the brief), for appellant.
    Norman N. Popper, Newark, N.J. (Daniel H. Bobis, Union, N.J., on the
    brief), for appellee.
    Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and KALODNER and FORMAN, Circuit
    Judges.
    PER CURIAM.

    The issue presented for our determination on this appeal is the validity of U.S.
    Patent No. 2,929,109. An examination of the record convinces us that the
    patent discloses nothing of patentable novelty. It seems, mechanical ingenuity
    aside, to contain nothing not adequately shown by the prior art. We conclude
    that it would not serve any useful purpose to review the evidence or the
    arguments of the parties here. Nothing can be added of consequence to the
    carefully prepared opinion of Judge Meaney in the court below. 216 F.Supp.
    870. The judgment will be affirmed.

    You might also like