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.
Application of PIERSON, 1928 — 26 F.2d 1010 · caselaw · US
Administrative
Application of PIERSON
26 F.2d 1010·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia·1928
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
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
Application of PIERSON.
Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted May 15, 1928.
Decided June 4, 1928.
No. 2067.
I. Patents <@=>17(3) — Beverage mixer with spout and operating handle and pair of stationary handles on each side held not patentable.
Beverage mixer, consisting of a container having a spout and operating handle with a pair of stationary handles on each side to be grasped when shaking container, held not patenable.
2. Patents <@=>17(3) — Attaching handles to receptacle or article is not invention.
Attaching handles to any otherwise old receptacle or articles does not constitute invention.
Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
Application by James R. Pierson for a patent. Prom a decision of the Commissioner denying the patent, applicant appeals.
Affirmed.
Hartwell Balcam, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
• T. A. Hostetler, of Washington, D. C., for Commissioner of Patents.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
[MAJORITY — VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.]
VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.
Appellant appeals from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents denying a patent for a beverage mixer disclosed in the following claim: “The combination in a beverage mixing container of large capacity having a pouring spout at its front and an operating handle at its rear, of a pair of horizontally disposed handles located at opposite sides thereof, said handles being adapted for reciprocation of the container in two-handed hand grasp.”
It will be observed that the patent relates to a container having a spout and operating handle with a pair of stationary handles on each side to be grasped when shaking the container for the purpose of mixing the contents therein. A patent to one Ball, dated April 1, 1924, discloses a beverage mixer similar to that claimed by the applicant but without handles; and a patent to one Hall, dated July 16, 1912, discloses a milk can having stationary handles arranged on the opposite sides thereof.
The idea of placing stationary handles on opposite sides of containers is old in the art. We agree with the Commissioner “that there is nothing inventive in attaching handles to any otherwise old receptacle or article.”
The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.