Hunt, Helm Ferris & Co. v. Elbert

Seventh Circuit

Hunt, Helm Ferris & Co. v. Elbert

9 F.2d 922, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 2493

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedDecember 8, 1925

DocketNo. 3320

StatusPublished

This text of 9 F.2d 922 (Hunt, Helm Ferris & Co. v. Elbert) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hunt, Helm Ferris & Co. v. Elbert, 9 F.2d 922, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 2493 (7th Cir. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

ALSCHULER, Circuit Judge.

The appeal is from deeree finding noninfringement of claims 1 and 4 of United States patent No. 988,561, to Hunt, Helm & Perris, assignees, 1911, for an animal stall.

With the views of the District Court upon the claims in issue (296 P. 921) we are quite in accord. As to claim 1, we find that in appellees’ structure there is wholly wanting the forward and backward adjustability of the frame which holds the stanchion, an essential element of the claim. Appellees’ .alleged infringing adjustability consists in means for widening or narrowing the distances between the frames of several stalls, which in that structure can be done only at time of installation, after which the adjustment thus made remains permanent.

As to claim 4 we agree with the District Court in its holding that, if it were construed as broadly as its language alone would admit, it would be void upon thé prior art, but that, if it has validity, it is only when read in the light of the limitations of the specification, as well as the prior art, and that when so limited the claim is not infringed.

The deeree of the District Court is affirmed.

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

ALSCHULER, Circuit Judge.

The appeal is from deeree finding noninfringement of claims 1 and 4 of United States patent No. 988,561, to Hunt, Helm & Perris, assignees, 1911, for an animal stall.

With the views of the District Court upon the claims in issue (296 P. 921) we are quite in accord. As to claim 1, we find that in appellees’ structure there is wholly wanting the forward and backward adjustability of the frame which holds the stanchion, an essential element of the claim. Appellees’ .alleged infringing adjustability consists in means for widening or narrowing the distances between the frames of several stalls, which in that structure can be done only at time of installation, after which the adjustment thus made remains permanent.

As to claim 4 we agree with the District Court in its holding that, if it were construed as broadly as its language alone would admit, it would be void upon thé prior art, but that, if it has validity, it is only when read in the light of the limitations of the specification, as well as the prior art, and that when so limited the claim is not infringed.

The deeree of the District Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 F.2d 922, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 2493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunt-helm-ferris-co-v-elbert-ca7-1925.