ARMSTRONG PAINT & VARNISH WORKS

v.

NU-ENAMEL CORP. ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Denaro v. Md. Baking Co. (D. Md. 1930)
  …aptitude, rather than creations of the inventor’s faculty. United States Industrial Chemical, Co. v. Theroz Co. (C. C. A.) 25 F.(2d) 387, 391; Huebner-Toledo Brew. Co. v. Mathews Grav. Carrier Co. (C. C. A.) 253 F. 447; Webster Loom Co. v. Higgins, 305 U. S. 580, 591, 26 L. Ed. 1177. The plaintiff claims that such new and useful results were produced by the first Denaro patent by a greatly increased, and hitherto unknown, capacity of the machine. This matter will be discussed hereafter, for it involves the…
• De Simone v. R. H. Macy & Co., Inc., 57 F.2d 179 (2d Cir. 1932)
  …accomplish the result was patentable. The result was more than a mere aggregation, and has resulted in a real contribution to the art. Diamond Rubber Co. v. Consolidated Co., 220 U. S. 428, 31 S. Ct. 444, 55 L. Ed. 527; Webster Loom Co. v. Higgins, 305 U. S. 580, 26 L. Ed. 1377; Sachs v. Hartford, 47 F.(2d) 743 (C. C. A. 2). .Even though there was a prior successfully operated bank cashier machine with canceling mechanism, to a.dd registers which record the minimum number of coins or bills and the total mon…