1/26/11 : A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp.

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Revision as of 13:35, 26 January 2011 by Hamburgler (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Case Summary


Facts of the Case

- Argued Oct. 18, 19, 1950. Decided Dec. 4, 1950. Rehearing Denied Jan. 8, 1951.

- Mr. John H. Glaccum, New York City, for petitioner.

- Mr. Townsend F. Beaman, Washington, D.C., for respondents.

- Mr. Justice JACKSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

- the claims assert invention of a cashier's counter equipped with a three-sided frame, or rack, with no top or bottom, which, which pushed or pulled, will move groceries deposited within it by a customer to the checking clerk and leave them there when it is pushed back to repeat the operation. It is kept on the counter by guides. That the resultant device words as claimed, speeds the customer on his way, reduces checking costs for the merchant, has been widely adopted and successfully used, appear beyond dispute.

- The District Court explicitly found that each element in this device was known to prior art. ‘However,’ it found, ‘the conception of a counter with an extension to receive a bottomless self-unloading tray with which to push the contents of the tray in front of the cashier was a decidedly novel feature and constitutes a new and useful combination.

    -How is the "new and useful" feature mentioned about not a definition of the entire invention?

- The Court of Appeals regarded the finding of this invention as one of fact. (recognized the need of some such device and the commercial success of it)

Class Notes

- dissent ==> concurring