Lay v. Indianapolis Brush & Broom Mfg. Co.

Citations

• 120 F. 831
• 57 C.C.A. 313
• 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4544

Syllabus

<p>1. Patents — Invention—Brooms.</p> <p>In making a sheet metal broom case to hold the brush together at the upper end where it fastens to the handle, there was no patentable invention involved in making it flaring, to conform to the shape of the broom, instead of straight up and down, nor in making it of a single piece of metal with the ends fastened together at one side of the broom, instead of in two pieces fastened together at either side.</p> <p>2. Same — Abandonment op Application — Second Application por Same Invention.</p> <p>The failure of an applicant for a patent to take further action for nearly three years after his application was finally rejected, and notice thereof received, operated as an abandonment under Rev. St. § 4894 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3384], unless the application was reinstated for unavoidable delay; and a new application thereafter filed cannot be treated as a continuation of the old proceedings, for the purpose of avoiding the effect of prior use.</p> <p>3. Same — Unavoidable Delay in Prosecution — Negligence op Attorney.</p> <p>The negligence of an attorney which works the abandonment of an application for a patent under the statute does not constitute unavoidable delay which will avoid the effect of such abandonment as to the applicant.</p> <p>4. Same — Invention—Brooms.</p> <p>The Lay patent, No. 652,542, for a broom case, is void for lack of invention, and for prior sale and use of the article.</p>