TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Hopkins

In re Marcus C. Hopkins

In re Hopkins, 34 F.2d 1016 (C.C.P.A. 1929)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Federal Specialty Courts
Decided
October 4, 1929
Docket
No. 2128
Judges
Bland, Garrett, Graham, Hatfield, Lenroot
Citations
34 F.2d 101617 C.C.P.A. 6211929 CCPA LEXIS 112

Opinion of the Court — Lenroot

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

LeNroot, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an appeal from the Board of Appeals of the Patent Office, wherein the Board of Appeals affirmed the Primary Examiner in refusing the applicant a patent for his design covering a loud-speaker, the claim for which reads as follows: “ The ornamental design for a loud-speaker, substantially as shown.”

The application was rejected upon the ground that the design here in question is not patentable over design patent to applicant No. 70115, May 11, 1926. Said patent discloses a loud-speaker having an octagonal outline, whereas the application design here under consideration shows a circular outline. There is no other difference.

In order to sustain the application, we must find that the change of design from an octagonal, sound board, covered by patent 70115, to a circular sound board, is inventive in character. This we can not do, and we agree with the Board of Appeals that the mere choice of one well known geometric form rather than another equally well known, which does not in any way modify the other portions of the design, can not support a patent.

The decision of the Board of Appeals of the Patent Office is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1993: 119932026peak 1993 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Reid Harvey12 F.3d 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1993)

Most recent

  1. In re Reid Harvey12 F.3d 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1993)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list