From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cresap v. Chemplast, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Apr 16, 1963
316 F.2d 920 (3d Cir. 1963)

Opinion

No. 14155.

Argued March 7, 1963.

Decided April 16, 1963.

Logan Cresap, New York City (William A. Fasolo, Hackensack, N.J., on the brief), for appellant.

Norman N. Popper, Newark, N.J. (Daniel H. Bobis, Union, N.J., on the brief), for appellee.

Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and KALODNER and FORMAN, Circuit Judges.


The issue presented for our determination on this appeal is the validity of U.S. Patent No. 2,929,109. An examination of the record convinces us that the patent discloses nothing of patentable novelty. It seems, mechanical ingenuity aside, to contain nothing not adequately shown by the prior art. We conclude that it would not serve any useful purpose to review the evidence or the arguments of the parties here. Nothing can be added of consequence to the carefully prepared opinion of Judge Meaney in the court below. 216 F. Supp. 870. The judgment will be affirmed.


Summaries of

Cresap v. Chemplast, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Apr 16, 1963
316 F.2d 920 (3d Cir. 1963)
Case details for

Cresap v. Chemplast, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Charles N. CRESAP, Appellant, v. CHEMPLAST, INC

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Date published: Apr 16, 1963

Citations

316 F.2d 920 (3d Cir. 1963)

Citing Cases

Continental Can Co. v. Crown Cork Seal Co.

On the contrary, the studies were made and statistics gathered after the event to provide an explanation of…

Builders Ser. Corp. v. Planning Zoning Comm'n

Even in a judicial opinion, "might" does not mean "must." N.L.R.B. v. Lundy Manufacturing Corporation, 316…