Case ID: f_198/html/0403-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WOOD v. KAHN et al.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 31, 1912.)
    No. 190.
    PATENTS (§ 328) — iNVEVrrON-PROCESS OF DIVIDING DIAMONDS.
    The Wood patent. No. 839,356. for a process of dividing diamonds, is void for lack of patentable invention.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
    
      Suit in equity by St. John Wood against Louis Kahn, Moses Kahn, and Sam Levy, doing business as L. & M. Kahn Company, and Philip Ferro and David Barsilay. Decree for defendants, and complainant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    For opinion below, see 189 Fed. 399.
    Appeal from a decree dismissing the bill of complaint which was based upon letters patent No. 839,356, granted to complainant for a process of dividing diamonds.
    Edwin J. Prindle (Arthur Wright, on the brief), for appellant.
    Johnson & Galston (Clarence G. Galston, of counsel), for appellees.
    Before COXE, WARD, and NOYES, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Fpr other cases see same topic & § number in Dee. & Am. Digs. 1907 to dale, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PER CURIAM.

We agree fully with the opinion of Judge Hough that the method of sawing a diamond described and claimed does not involve invention. The fact that the object to be divided is of great value does not change what would otherwise be mechanical skill into invention. It might, as pointed out, require unusual courage for the operator .to risk such a process on so valuable an article, but courage is not patentable.

We deem it unnecessary to add anything to the opinion of the Circuit Court.

The decree is affirmed.