Selectasine Patents Co. v. Prest-O-Graph Co.

Ninth Circuit

Selectasine Patents Co. v. Prest-O-Graph Co.

276 F. 260, 1921 U.S. App. LEXIS 2069

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 24, 1921

DocketNo. 3628

StatusPublished

This text of 276 F. 260 (Selectasine Patents Co. v. Prest-O-Graph 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

Selectasine Patents Co. v. Prest-O-Graph Co., 276 F. 260, 1921 U.S. App. LEXIS 2069 (9th Cir. 1921).

Pincite

Opinions

ROSS, Circuit Judge.

This suit was brought for the alleged infringement of certain letters patent relating to “method of delineating or reproducing pictures and designs.”

The gist of the patented process, as we view it, is the building of color upon color in producing their multicolor picture designs, thereby producing a certain embossed effect. The nearest approach to anticipation shown by the record is the English patent to Simon, and we agree with the court below, for reasons stated in its opinion and which, therefore, need not be repeated, that the complainant’s process was not anticipated by that of Simon. "We think the Patent Office rightly held novel the process here claimed, and that it is highly useful is abundantly shown by the evidence.

That the defendants to the suit infringed by using the same process in the production of their designs and pictures — sometimes, it is true, [261]*261by tlie use of a single screen and sometimes by the use of a plurality oí screens — clearly appears from the record. In each instance the same process was used.

It is enough to say, in answer to the contení ion of the cross-appel-iecs, that the injunction granted should have been extended to the use of a plurality of screens; that none of the claims of the patent sued-on covered more than one screen.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

ROSS, Circuit Judge.

This suit was brought for the alleged infringement of certain letters patent relating to “method of delineating or reproducing pictures and designs.”

The gist of the patented process, as we view it, is the building of color upon color in producing their multicolor picture designs, thereby producing a certain embossed effect. The nearest approach to anticipation shown by the record is the English patent to Simon, and we agree with the court below, for reasons stated in its opinion and which, therefore, need not be repeated, that the complainant’s process was not anticipated by that of Simon. "We think the Patent Office rightly held novel the process here claimed, and that it is highly useful is abundantly shown by the evidence.

That the defendants to the suit infringed by using the same process in the production of their designs and pictures — sometimes, it is true, [261]*261by tlie use of a single screen and sometimes by the use of a plurality oí screens — clearly appears from the record. In each instance the same process was used.

It is enough to say, in answer to the contení ion of the cross-appel-iecs, that the injunction granted should have been extended to the use of a plurality of screens; that none of the claims of the patent sued-on covered more than one screen.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 F. 260, 1921 U.S. App. LEXIS 2069, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/selectasine-patents-co-v-prest-o-graph-co-ca9-1921.