neutral
Cited (no substantive treatment)
0.2 score
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
MAGIC FINGERS, INC., Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
Robert E. AUGER Et Al., Defendants, Appellees
v.
Robert E. AUGER Et Al., Defendants, Appellees
6408_1.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Dec 30, 1964.
S. C. Yuter, New York City, with whom Glass & Greenapple, New York City, was on brief, for appellant., Robert H. Riñes, Boston, Mass., with whom Riñes & Riñes, Boston, Mass., was on brief, for appellees.
Woodbury, Aldrich, Caf-Frey.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM.
The very most that can be said for the appellant’s patent is that it discloses a mere mechanic’s adaptation of a device in public use and on sale more than a year before the patent was applied for to make that earlier device more readily attachable to the basic structure with, which it was designed to cooperate to-produce a vibrating chair or bed. We-see no need to elaborate upon the District Court’s fully and carefully reasoned opinion. D.C., 232 F.Supp. 372.
Judgment will be entered affirming the-judgment of the District Court dismissing count one of the plaintiff’s complaint.