The Patent Office, being of the view that the stamping of these circular depressions for the balls in [*541] what the Office conceived to be an ordinary sheet metal screen-door hinge did not rise to the [**3] dignity of invention
In re Katzenberger, 46 App. D.C. 539 *, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2582 (D.C. Cir. June 8, 1917)
In re Katzenberger, 46 App. D.C. 539 *, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2582 (D.C. Cir. June 8, 1917)
...Apparently he is the first to conceive an anti-friction hinge, the only additional cost of which is for the balls. Having in mind that where a distinct advance has been made in a given art and the question of patentability is close, it will be resolved [**4] in favor of the applicant...
In re Katzenberger, 46 App. D.C. 539 *, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2582 (D.C. Cir. June 8, 1917)
Looks like Mr. Katzenberger had over 20 patents!
In re Katzenberger, 46 App. D.C. 539 *, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2582 (D.C. Cir. June 8, 1917)
Looks like Mr. Katzenberger had over 20 patents!
