Case Name: ROEHR v. BLISS et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1900-05-24
Citations: 102 F. 692
Docket Number: No. 161
Parties: ROEHR v. BLISS et al.
Judges: Before WALLACE and LACOMBE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 102
Pages: 692–693

Head Matter:
ROEHR v. BLISS et al.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
May 24, 1900.)
No. 161.
Patents — Invention—Door Frames.
The Boda patent, No. 385,233, for finishing of house interiors, as to claims 1, 2, and 3, which cover, as an article of manufacture, a completed . door frame made in two parts, to be joined together after they are placed in the wall opening, is void for lack of patentable invention.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Connecticut.
Chas. L. Burdette, for appellant.
E. Henry Hyde, for appellees.
Before WALLACE and LACOMBE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
It would serve no useful purpose to enlarge upon the opinions expressed by Judge Shipman and Judge Townsend when the patent in suit was before them respectively. 82 Fed. 445; 98 Fed. 120. We concur in the views taken by each of them, and entertain no doubt of the invalidity of the patent. It could not involve any invention to make a complete door frame in two parts. All that was necessary to be done by the carpenter was to make a complete frame, and then divide the jamb longitudinally into two sections by the saw. It could not involve any invention to join the two sections together again. Any carpenter exercising the common skill of the calling would be able to do this, and, if he wanted to make the interlocking jamb, which is a subordinate feature of the alleged invention as specified in some of the claims,, he would have known how to do so by tonguing and grooving the respective faces of the jamb. The decree is affirmed, with costs.