Saturday, April 15, 2017

The only additional cost of which is for the balls...

by Steve Reiss (stevenreiss@scienbizippc.com)

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)
 
...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!

No comments:

Post a Comment