Union Metal Mfg. Co. v. Ooms
| Citation | 81 US App. DC 76,154 F.2d 857 |
| Decision Date | 15 April 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 9115.,9115. |
| Parties | UNION METAL MFG. CO. et al. v. OOMS, Commissioner of Patents. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
Mr. Everett R. Hamilton, of Canton, Ohio, of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Ohio, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, with whom Messrs. Harry Frease, of Canton, Ohio, and Edward R. Walton, Jr., of Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellants.
Mr. H. S. Mackey, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. W. W. Cochran, Solicitor, United States Patent Office, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.
Before EDGERTON, WILBUR K. MILLER, and PRETTYMAN, Associate Justices.
The appellants sued in the District Court under the provisions of § 4915, R.S., U.S. C.A. Title 35, § 63, to have it adjudged that the appellant, The Union Metal Manufacturing Company, is entitled to receive a patent containing claims 1 and 2 of application Serial No. 513,730. From a judgment holding that neither of the claims is patentable, they appeal.
Claims 1 and 2 of the application read as follows:
These claims were denied patentability by the Patent Office and the District Court on the ground that they do not disclose invention over the prior art as shown by the following patents: Gates, No. 535,537; Kraft, No. 1,691,818; Riemenschneider, No. 1,821,850; Pfaff, No. 1,877,583; Nickles, No. 1,941,952; De Vou No. 2,008,785; Wallace, No. 2,173,525. In our opinion, the novelty necessary to show inventive genius is lacking in these claims. We reproduce in the margin certain of the lower court's findings of fact which clearly show that the device had been anticipated.1
The appellants proved the utility of their product as a cargo boom, and its widespread acceptance by the shipping industry as a useful device. But a plain absence of invention is not overcome by evidence of usefulness and commercial success.2 Only when there is doubt as to invention or novelty is proof of practical utility and general commercial acceptance permitted to turn the decision in favor of patentability.3 The lower court correctly held that neither claim recites anything amounting to invention over the prior art. That being true, commercial success does not supply the lacking invention.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rendleman v. Ladd
...that the present arrangement is patentable. The Patent Office Board of Appeals rejected this argument. In Union Metal Mfg. Co. v. Ooms, 1946, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 76, 154 F.2d 857, the Court said in this "The appellants proved the utility of their product as a cargo boom, and its widespread acce......
-
Murton v. Ladd
...success is persuasive of unobviousness only in instances where that question is otherwise in doubt. Union Metal Mfg. Co. et al. v. Ooms, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 76, 154 F.2d 857 (1946). The Court here considers the references to so clearly teach all material aspects of the subject matter claimed th......
-
Application of Mageli
...find the issue of obviousness otherwise in doubt, this evidence can be accorded only slight probative weight. Union Metal Mfg. Co. v. Ooms, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 76, 154 F.2d 857 (1946). It must be pointed out that Judge Jackson was writing nearly two years before Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.......
-
Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Ladd
...success, standing alone, are not persuasive of patentability, they must be given weight in doubtful cases. Union Metal Mfg. Co. et al. v. Ooms, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 76, 154 F.2d 857 (1946). It was additionally shown at trial that extensive effort was made by the United States and Great Britain d......