Baker v. Sterling Engraving Co.
District Court, D. Maryland
1Opinion of the Court
CHESNUT, District Judge.
Claims 4 and 5 of the patent in this suit (U. S. No. 2,207,449-Baker) are, I think, clearly invalid for want of novelty and invention. Claim 5 is the one particularly relied upon in this case by the plaintiff. It reads as follows: “5. Carriage stepping mechanism for the purpose described, including in combination, a bed, guide means thereon, a carriage adapted for movement along said guide means, means providing a plurality of accurately and equally spaced station stops adjacent one of said guide means, a single means permanently fixed to said carriage to engage with…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Atlantic Works v. BradySupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Electric Cable Joint Co. v. Brooklyn Edison Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Rokap Corp. v. LammDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1935
- Rokap Corp. v. LammCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1936