Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
In re DAWSON, 1929 — 30 F.2d 1005 · caselaw · US
IP
In re DAWSON
30 F.2d 1005·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia·1929
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
In re DAWSON.
Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted January 17, 1929.
Decided February 4, 1929.
No. 2115.
Joseph H. Milans and Calvin T. Milans, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
T. A. Hostetler, of Washington, D. C., for Board of Appeals.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
[MAJORITY — VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.]
VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.
The appellant is here claiming an invention for a square-shaped carton for “the holding of caps of circular form having laterally projecting tabs so that the caps may he held in alignment by means of the tabs being aligned in a selected corner of the carton. The caps being kept in this position may be emptied from the carton directly into a feeding shoot of an applying machine where the caps can be applied for sealing bottles and various kinds of vessels.”
The claims wore rejected on a patent to ono Dyer, April 18, 1922, which shows a ear-ton of similar shape which he used for inclosing a tooth paste tube, in which the bottom of the tube is longer than its diameter; and the tube is positioned in the square carton with its longer dimension fitting into the two diagonal corners, thus preventing the tube from shifting from its original position.
The Spiller patent of November 22, 1910, discloses circular jar sealing paper caps with laterally projecting tabs similar to those of appellant. These are assembled in alignment and inclosed in a carton of different shape from that of appellant.
In view of tlie references and the common use of sealing paper caps and paper cartons, we deem the device of appellant unpatentable.
The decision of the Board of Patent Appeals is affirmed.