Lundy Electronics & Systems, Inc. v. Optical Recognition Systems, Inc., Lundy Electronics & Systems, Inc. v. Optical Recognition Systems, Inc.

493 F.2d 1222, 182 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 76, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 9499
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMarch 25, 1974
Docket73-1998, 73-1999
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 493 F.2d 1222 (Lundy Electronics & Systems, Inc. v. Optical Recognition Systems, Inc., Lundy Electronics & Systems, Inc. v. Optical Recognition Systems, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lundy Electronics & Systems, Inc. v. Optical Recognition Systems, Inc., Lundy Electronics & Systems, Inc. v. Optical Recognition Systems, Inc., 493 F.2d 1222, 182 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 76, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 9499 (4th Cir. 1974).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

From a judgment holding Claims 1-4, 9, 11-16, 23, 24, 28, and 30 of Dykaar and Stein’s United States Patent No. 3,535,682 valid but not infringed, Lundy Electronics & Systems, Inc., the assignee and owner of all interests in the patent, appeals the ruling on the question of infringement. Optical Recognition Systems, Inc., the manufacturer of the accused device, appeals the declaration of validity. We affirm on the excellent opinion of the district judge. Lundy Electronics & Systems, Inc. v. Optical Recognition Systems, Inc., 362 F.Supp. 130 (E.D.Va.1973).

The claims in question disclose a method and apparatus for automatically reeogniring magnetic ink characters that are printed on documents. The most important example mentioned in the patent is the recognition of characters shaped in the type E-13 B font that are imprinted on the lower left-hand edge of bank checks and deposit slips.

The record depicts a crowded technical field in which advances over the prior art are very narrow. Dykaar and Stein’s departure from existing systems, though slight, is sufficient to justify the district court’s holding that their invention was neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by the prior art, and it properly held other attacks on the validity of the patent to be without merit.

Although the accused device performs the same ultimate function as that described in the patent, the district court found that it employs significantly different timing circuitry and means for establishing reference voltage levels. These findings are not clearly erroneous. Though the advance they achieve is slight, they are sufficient to negate the charge of infringement.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Ab Iro v. Otex, Inc.
566 F. Supp. 419 (D. South Carolina, 1983)
In Re Cole Patent Litigation
558 F. Supp. 937 (D. Delaware, 1983)
RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data System, Inc.
558 F. Supp. 937 (D. Delaware, 1983)
Coal Processing Equipment, Inc. v. Campbell
578 F. Supp. 445 (S.D. Ohio, 1981)
Honeywell, Inc. v. Diamond
499 F. Supp. 924 (District of Columbia, 1980)
Ropat Corporation v. West Bend Company
382 F. Supp. 1030 (N.D. Illinois, 1974)
Ropat Corp. v. West Bend Co.
382 F. Supp. 1030 (N.D. Illinois, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
493 F.2d 1222, 182 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 76, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 9499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lundy-electronics-systems-inc-v-optical-recognition-systems-inc-ca4-1974.