Ellis v. Shaw
| Decision Date | 05 February 1924 |
| Docket Number | 1615. |
| Citation | 295 F. 1006 |
| Parties | ELLIS v. SHAW. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Submitted November 20, 1923.
Alva V Cushman, of Washington, D.C., and John E. Stryker, of St Paul, Minn., for appellant.
William W. Dodge and T. A. Witherspoon, both of Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Before SMYTH, Chief Justice, ROBB, Associate Justice, and MARTIN Presiding Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.
Appeal in a patent interference case. The contest is between the parties Ellis and Shaw; the party Muench having abandoned the case. The invention relates to so-called heat-insulating boards or panels, sometimes called lath boards, composed of disintegrated vegetable fiber, designed to serve in the place of lath in a wall as a base or foundation for the plaster. It may be said in general terms that each of the competing inventions provides for boards of this material, having grooves, indentions, or depressions upon one side, which is to be the plaster-receiving side; it being intended that these depressions shall become filled with plaster when that material is spread upon the surface, thereby serving an interlocking purpose.
The two counts of the issue read as follows:
1. A lath board composed of disintegrated fiber formed into a porous, expansible and compressible heat-insulating body, having on one of its surfaces depressions adapted to positively interlock with the plaster.
2. A lath board composed of disintegrated vegetable fiber pulp and formed with depressions to positively interlock with plaster applied thereto; the fiber pulp being adapted to stretch and compress under a force less than that which will crack said plaster.
Shaw filed his application on May 23, 1918, and claims conception on October 23, 1917; first sketches, drawings, and written descriptions on May 25, 1918; disclosure November 15, 1917; and actual reduction to practice November 22, 1918. He claims also to have made specimens on January 3, 1918, with depressions which were too small to be efficient, but which by mechanical improvement could be made so.
Ellis filed his application on December 5, 1918, and claims conception with sketches in February, 1918; first specimen made first week in April, 1918; prospectus, with construction drawings, before August 1, 1918; disclosure in April, 1918. Ellis was improvidently granted a patent on September 30,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woofter v. Carlson, Patent Appeal No. 7496.
...structure shown in the drawings forming a part of the application. Cf. Wirkler v. Perkins, 245 F.2d 502, 44 CCPA 1005; Ellis v. Shaw, 54 App.D.C. 185, 295 F. 1006, 1924 C.D. 230; Foss v. Ogelsby, 127 F.2d 312, 29 CCPA In Padgett v. Warner, 104 F.2d 957, 26 CCPA 1403, this court observed: As......
- In re Johnson
-
Forward Process Co. v. Coe
...2 Cf. Eames v. Andrews, 122 U.S. 40, 7 S.Ct. 1073, 30 L.Ed. 1064; Rogers v. Aikman, 51 App.D.C. 218, 219, 277 F. 617; Ellis v. Shaw, 54 App.D.C. 185, 186, 295 F. 1006; Prescott v. Swain, 57 App.D.C. 306, 307, 22 F.2d 3 Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 214, 26 C.C.P.A., Patents, 937. ...
-
Line Material Co. v. Ooms
...for releasing said locking means by relative movement between the fuse tube and said one of the ferrules of said tube." 4 Ellis v. Shaw, 54 App.D.C. 185, 295 F. 1006; Prescott et al. v. Swain, 57 App. D.C. 306, 22 F.2d 1004. It may also be observed that the applicant is not obliged to fully......