U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1941

Wingfoot Corp. v. Coe

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided December 29, 1941 · Edgerton, Miller, Vinson

124 F.2d 522; 75 U.S. App. D.C. 160; 52 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 153; 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 2555 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Gordon C. Mack, of Akron, Ohio with whom Mr. Edmund H. Parry, Jr., of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant., Mr. E. L. Reynolds, of Washington, D. C. with whom Mr. W. W. Cochran, Solicitor, United States Patent Office, was on the brief, for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Besser v. Ooms (D.C. Cir. 1946)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit under R.S. § 4915, 35 U.S.C.A. § 63, to obtain a patent on Sebrell and Thies application No. 722,480, filed April 26, 1934, for a water-proofing composition adapted for coating flexible wrapping materials such as paper and cloth. The composition is made by reacting rubber in solution with chlorostannic acid or a halide of an amphoteric metal. Some of the claims use the name “Pliolite.” Some call for heat-sealing. The Patent Office and the District Court were of opinion that the appealed claims lack invention, in view of Geer patent No. 1,744,881, Gentile patent No. 1,804,-556, and an article by Sebrell, one of the applicants, and other authors, in Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, Vol. 19, p. 1033. We cannot say that their opinion is clearly wrong. Abbott v. Coe, 71 App.D.C. 195, 109 F.2d 449.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.