Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Esso Research and Engineering Co. v. Kahn and Co.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT


April 28, 1975

ESSO RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
KAHN AND COMPANY, INC. AND CHANDLER-EVANS, INC., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, M. Joseph Blumenfeld, J., declaring appellant's patent invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Affirmed.

Before: HAYS, GURFEIN, and VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:

The patent involved in this case was issued to Dr. Charles W. Skarstrom for his "Method and Apparatus for Fractionating Gasseous Mixtures by Adsorption." Skarstrom came upon his method by some clever experimenting and modification of the apparatus he was using for a similar purpose when it broke down.

Admirable as Dr. Skarstrom's work may have been, it was done without knowledge of prior similar work of a German physicist named Kahle. We agree with Judge Blumenfeld that Kahle's work, not cited to the Patent Office at the time of Skarstrom's application, contains substantially all the elements of Skarstrom's device, both individually and in combination. For that reason, Skarstrom's patent does not satisfy the requirement of non-obviousness established by 35 U.S.C. § 103. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). We therefore affirm on the thorough and well-reasoned opinion of Judge Blumenfeld reported at 379 F. Supp. 205 (D. Conn. 1974).

19750428

© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.