v2942-582
16
utility, diaper-nursing bottle bag). However, it is im-
material whether the Shanzer patent is valid or invalid.
It is still a prior patent. As clearly stated in Title 35,
- 102(a), a person is not entitled to a patent where,
''(a) the invention was . . . patented."
The statute does not state that the prior patent has to
be a valid one before it can anticipate. Any patent, valid
or invalid, constitutes an anticipation of any subsequent
patent on the same subject matter. Thus, Exhibit X is
immaterial as far as the pertinence of the Shanzer patent
is concerned.
Conclusion.
In conclusion, it is submitted that the patent in suit is
clearly invalid in view of the prior art overlooked by the
Examiner, and that the judgment of the lower court,
based upon full and complete findings, should be affirmed.
Respectfully submitted,
- Stratton,
Attorney for Appellee.
Warner, Peracca & Cowan,
Henry M. Cowan,
Of Counsel.
archive.org Volume Name: govuscourtsca9briefs2942
Volume: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs2942
Document Link: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs2942#page/n581/mode/1up
Top Keywords (auto-generated):
cp, 03, ft, rt, 0, patent, o3, t3, si, ri, rh, pi, en, valid, ts
Top Key Phrases (auto-generated):
shanzer patent, cp cp, xx pj, warner peracca, w4 th, utility diaper, tu el, tt en, ts rt, t so, tj oi, title 35, ta rrl, t4 hi, subsequent patent
Document Status: UGLY