Foundation Co. v. O'Rourke Engineering Const. Co.

Second Circuit

Foundation Co. v. O'Rourke Engineering Const. Co.

228 F. 515, 143 C.C.A. 97, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2047

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 9, 1915

DocketNo. 100

StatusPublished

This text of 228 F. 515 (Foundation Co. v. O'Rourke Engineering Const. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Foundation Co. v. O'Rourke Engineering Const. Co., 228 F. 515, 143 C.C.A. 97, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2047 (2d Cir. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

[1,2] Judge Hunt has made a clear statement of the improvements covered by the claims in issue and a careful analysis of the various defenses and alleged anticipations urged by the appellant. We agree with him except as to claim 6 of No. 759,389. This claim as originally inserted was as follows: “A caisson having a cutting edge of masonry.” After the trial, but prior to the final submission of the case, the plaintiff filed a disclaimer which limited this claim to concrete, so that it read: “A caisson having a cutting edge of concrete.” It is not contended that the alleged infringing structure has a cutting edge of concrete. All that counsel for the plaintiff asserts in this particular is that “the cutting edge of the Walker-Lispenard caissons is backed solidly by concrete and its face half concrete and half iron.” In other words, the contention is that a cutting edge half iron and half concrete is a cutting edge of concrete. We are unable to agree with this contention, as the claim is expressly limited to a cutting edge of concrete.

The decree is affirmed, with costs, but with half co§,ts only as to patent No. 759,389.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

[1,2] Judge Hunt has made a clear statement of the improvements covered by the claims in issue and a careful analysis of the various defenses and alleged anticipations urged by the appellant. We agree with him except as to claim 6 of No. 759,389. This claim as originally inserted was as follows: “A caisson having a cutting edge of masonry.” After the trial, but prior to the final submission of the case, the plaintiff filed a disclaimer which limited this claim to concrete, so that it read: “A caisson having a cutting edge of concrete.” It is not contended that the alleged infringing structure has a cutting edge of concrete. All that counsel for the plaintiff asserts in this particular is that “the cutting edge of the Walker-Lispenard caissons is backed solidly by concrete and its face half concrete and half iron.” In other words, the contention is that a cutting edge half iron and half concrete is a cutting edge of concrete. We are unable to agree with this contention, as the claim is expressly limited to a cutting edge of concrete.

The decree is affirmed, with costs, but with half co§,ts only as to patent No. 759,389.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 F. 515, 143 C.C.A. 97, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foundation-co-v-orourke-engineering-const-co-ca2-1915.