Riester: 3/23/11 Homework: Difference between revisions
From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
May 27, 1963. | May 27, 1963. | ||
Bottom Line: Appeal of a ruling by a district court that held that a patent was invalid because it had been described in a pamphlet that published more than one year prior to the date of application of the patent. The US Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment, saying that the pamphlet had "sufficient particularity to enable one skilled in art of constructing patented article to reproduce the invention without having resort to the patent." Thus, again holding this patent to be invalid. | Bottom Line: Appeal of a ruling by a district court that held that a patent was invalid because it had been described in a pamphlet that published more than one year prior to the date of application of the patent. The US Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment, saying that the pamphlet had "sufficient particularity to enable one skilled in art of constructing patented article to reproduce the invention without having resort to the patent." Thus, again holding this patent to be invalid as per 35 USCA section 102(b). | ||
Revision as of 11:06, 23 March 2011
United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit. BROS INCORPORATED, Appellant, v. BROWNING MANUFACTURING CO. and Shovel Supply Co., Inc., Appellees.
No. 17169.
May 27, 1963.
Bottom Line: Appeal of a ruling by a district court that held that a patent was invalid because it had been described in a pamphlet that published more than one year prior to the date of application of the patent. The US Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment, saying that the pamphlet had "sufficient particularity to enable one skilled in art of constructing patented article to reproduce the invention without having resort to the patent." Thus, again holding this patent to be invalid as per 35 USCA section 102(b).
