Court Opinion

ID: 9447950
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:18:18.186866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:14.449222
License: Public Domain

BARNES, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
In concurring in the foregoing opinion, I desire to add that in view of the rejection by the Patent Examiner of claims numbers 6, 14 and 15, as amended, made by Preisler and Shone to the Patent Office, and the subsequent cancellation of those claims by the applicants, and for the reasons stated by the Patent Examiner, I have grave doubts that there exists any invention in the Preisler patent number 2,728,580 over prior art, and I have grave doubts that either it or the Smith patent number 2,798,730 are anything more than a mere aggregation of a number of old parts or elements which perform or introduce no new or different function or operation, and hence, are not patentable. It is difficult for me to see where “the toggle bar form” is a device requiring more ingenuity than might be furnished by any mechanic skilled in the art. I am not coming to any final conclusion, however, until proper findings are before this Court.
STEPHENS, Circuit Judge.
I join Judge BARNES in his statement made in the last sentence of' his concurring opinion.
JERTBERG, Circuit Judge.
I join Judge BARNES in his statement made in the last sentence of his concurring opinion.