Wollensak Optical Co. v. Ilex Optical Co.

Second Circuit

Wollensak Optical Co. v. Ilex Optical Co.

209 F. 232, 126 C.C.A. 610, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1788

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided November 11, 1913·No. No. 21·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It is manifest that this is a crowded art and that there can be no broad range of equivalents. All that the first patent shows is an arrangement inter sese of four operating terminals, all integral with the so-called master-lever. Assuming .that patentee’s arrangement was a novel one and that it accomplished sufficient improvement to sustain a patent, it is not infringed by an arrangement, which, as defendant’s does, omits one of these four parts.

As to the second patent. In such a crowded art it must be confined to the details shown and embodied in the claims. We concur in Judge Hazel’s disposition of the cause and see no reason to add anything to his discussion.

The decree is affirmed with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

It is manifest that this is a crowded art and that there can be no broad range of equivalents. All that the first patent shows is an arrangement inter sese of four operating terminals, all integral with the so-called master-lever. Assuming .that patentee’s arrangement was a novel one and that it accomplished sufficient improvement to sustain a patent, it is not infringed by an arrangement, which, as defendant’s does, omits one of these four parts.

As to the second patent. In such a crowded art it must be confined to the details shown and embodied in the claims. We concur in Judge Hazel’s disposition of the cause and see no reason to add anything to his discussion.

The decree is affirmed with costs.

Wollensak Optical Co. v. Ilex Optical Co., 209 F. 232, 126 C.C.A. 610, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1788 (2d Cir. 1913).

Pincite

209 F. 232 (Wollensak Optical Co. v. Ilex Optical Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.