Troy Laundry Machinery Co. v. Adams Laundry Machinery Co.

Second Circuit

Troy Laundry Machinery Co. v. Adams Laundry Machinery Co.

73 F. 301, 19 C.C.A. 505, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 1801

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 17, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 73 F. 301 (Troy Laundry Machinery Co. v. Adams Laundry Machinery 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

Troy Laundry Machinery Co. v. Adams Laundry Machinery Co., 73 F. 301, 19 C.C.A. 505, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 1801 (2d Cir. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The object of the invention described in the patent in suit, No. 401,770, its novel features of construction, and the particular object and beneficial effect of the thin textile covering which is one of the elements of the patented combinations, are fully stated in the opinion of Judge Coxe in Troy Laundry Machinery Co. v. Sharp, 54 Fed. 712, and the necessity of a restatement of these facts is obviated. In view of the limitations placed upon the claims of the patent by the action of the patent office, and acquiesced in by the patentees, and in view of the specific^ language of the claims and of the description in the patent, we are of the opinion that the “thin textile covering” of the dampening rollers which is an element of each claim cannot be construed to include a covering of felt of the thickness used in the machines of the defendant, and consequently that the defendants have not infringed the patent. The decree of the circuit court is affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The object of the invention described in the patent in suit, No. 401,770, its novel features of construction, and the particular object and beneficial effect of the thin textile covering which is one of the elements of the patented combinations, are fully stated in the opinion of Judge Coxe in Troy Laundry Machinery Co. v. Sharp, 54 Fed. 712, and the necessity of a restatement of these facts is obviated. In view of the limitations placed upon the claims of the patent by the action of the patent office, and acquiesced in by the patentees, and in view of the specific^ language of the claims and of the description in the patent, we are of the opinion that the “thin textile covering” of the dampening rollers which is an element of each claim cannot be construed to include a covering of felt of the thickness used in the machines of the defendant, and consequently that the defendants have not infringed the patent. The decree of the circuit court is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 F. 301, 19 C.C.A. 505, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 1801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/troy-laundry-machinery-co-v-adams-laundry-machinery-co-ca2-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack