Leishman v. Associated Wholesale Electric Co.

137 F.2d 722, 59 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 1, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 2887
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedAugust 11, 1943
DocketNo. 9970
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 137 F.2d 722 (Leishman v. Associated Wholesale Electric Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Leishman v. Associated Wholesale Electric Co., 137 F.2d 722, 59 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 1, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 2887 (9th Cir. 1943).

Opinion

MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.

Appellant, LeRoy J. Leishman, brought an action against appellee, Associated Wholesale Electric Company, for infringement of claims 7-11 of reissue patent No. 20,827.1 Defenses were that the claims [723]*723were invalid, and that, if valid, they were not infringed. The District Court held the claims invalid2 and, on May 1, 1941, entered judgment dismissing the action. From that judgment an appeal was taken on September 4, 1941. We dismissed the appeal as not having been taken in time.3 The Supreme Court reversed our judgment and remanded the case for decision on the merits.4

The original patent (No. 2,108,538) was applied for by appellant on December 15, 1934, and was issued to him on Fel ruary 15, 1938. The reissue patent (No. 20,827) was applied for by appellant on May 23, 1938, and was issued to him on August 16, 1938. The original patent consisted of a specification, a drawing and six claims (claims 1-6). The specification, the drawing and the six claims of the original patent were incorporated, without change, in the reissue patent. The reissue patent included six additional claims (claims 7-12). Otherwise, the original and the reissue were identical.

This action was commenced on September 12, 1938. On January 16, 1939, while the action was pending in the District Court, claim 5 was disclaimed in its entirety.5 Hence both the original patent and the reissue must be construed as if claim 5 had never been included in either;6 for the disclaimer “speaks from the date of the original patent.” 7

Appellee contends that claims 7-11 of the reissue patent are not for the same invention as the original patent and hence are invalid. The contention is based on § 4916 of the Revised Statutes, 35 U.S.C.A. § 64, which provides: “Whenever any patent is wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective or insufficient specification, or by reason of the patentee claiming as his own invention or discovery more than he had a right to claim as new, if the error has arisen by inadvertence, accident, or mistake, and without any fraudulent or deceptive intention, the commissioner shall * * * cause a patent for the same invention,8 and in accordance with the corrected specification, to be reissued * *

Thus a reissue patent must be for the same invention as the original patent. Otherwise it is invalid.9 An original patent and a reissue patent are not for the same invention unless what is covered by the reissue was disclosed in the original and was intended to have been covered and secured by the original.10 And this intention “must appear from the face of the instrument.” 11 Hence the questions here to be considered are whether what is covered by claims 7-11 of the reissue patent was disclosed in the original patent, and whether it appears from the face of the original that what is covered by claims 7 — 11 of the reissue was intended to have been covered and secured by the original.

The specification of the original patent states that the invention therein described “relates to improvements in automatic apparatus for turning rotatable objects about their axes to predetermined positions and more particularly to means whereby a plurality of such objects may be immediately and simultaneously rotated to any one of several pre-selected positions or ‘settings’ which may be different for each rotated object;” and that—

“The purposes of this invention are to provide simple apparatus for turning dials, shafts and the like to the particular settings required in using an instrument or machine for a definite task; to afford means whereby a plurality of such rotatable elements may be simultaneously turned [724]*724each to a pre-selected position which may be different from that to which any other such element is being turned; to provide a simple manually operated control for accurately returning such rotatable elements to any desired previous position; to provide mechanism whereby a single manual operation will cause a plurality of rotatable members each to be turned to any one of a group of pre-selected positions ; to provide means for simultaneously setting the dials of a radio receiving set and a television receiving set; to make it possible for a single manual operation to tune either a radio set or a television set, or both; and to afford means whereby the apparatus may easily be adjusted so that a definite manual operation will cause the desired rotatable element to be turned to a desired position.
“The application of this invention to radio and television makes it possible to ‘tune in’ a radio broadcasting station and its associated television broadcasting station in far less time and with much less bother than would otherwise be required. The large number of pictorial elements needed in television for the transmission of a single detailed image within the time period of the persistence of vision, makes the use of short wave desirable; and further, the governments of various countries have allotted certain frequencies in the short wave bands for this purpose. For these and other reasons, the satisfactory transmission of both sound and vision by radio waves requires that they be transmitted on different carrier frequencies. To receive both the sound and the associated television, the radio receiving set must be tuned to the frequency on which the radio broadcasting station is transmitting, and the short wave television receiver must be tuned to the different frequency of the television broadcasting station which transmits the images of the scene at which the radio program originates. The dial settings for these stations are entirely different, and it is therefore impractical to turn the dials synchronously by any connecting means, such as gears, belts or a common shaft. The present invention makes it possible to accomplish this double tuning by a single manual operation.”

A combination embodying this invention is illustrated in the original patent drawing, here reproduced.

The specification states that Fig. 1 of the drawing “shows a pair of concentric rectangular rockers, each attached to a different control shaft;” that Fig. 2 “shows a side view of the rockers of Fig. 1, together with a positioning lever assembly having adjustable tappets for engaging the rockers;” that Fig. 3 “is a section of the lever assembly shown in Fig. 2, taken on line 58-59;” and that—

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

Related

McCullough Tool Co. v. Well Surveys, Inc.
343 F.2d 381 (Tenth Circuit, 1965)
Lockwood v. Langendorf United Bakeries, Inc.
324 F.2d 82 (Ninth Circuit, 1963)
Air Devices, Inc. v. Air Factors, Inc.
210 F.2d 481 (Ninth Circuit, 1954)
Leishman v. General Motors Corp.
191 F.2d 522 (Ninth Circuit, 1951)
Ganter v. Unit Venetian Blind Supply Corp.
89 F. Supp. 479 (S.D. California, 1950)
General Motors Corp. v. Leishman
85 F. Supp. 187 (S.D. California, 1949)
Richards & Conover Co. v. Leishman
172 F.2d 365 (Tenth Circuit, 1948)
Leishman v. Radio Condenser Co.
167 F.2d 890 (Ninth Circuit, 1948)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
137 F.2d 722, 59 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 1, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 2887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leishman-v-associated-wholesale-electric-co-ca9-1943.