Mayer v. Mutschler
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of New York. Suit by Charles W. M ayer against A. & H. G. Mutschler and others. From a decree (237 Fed. 654) for complainant, defendants appeal. Tho action is on claims 1 to 4, 7, 8, 14, 15, and 47 to 49, of patent to plaintiff, No. 1,043,021, applied for November 24, 1911, and issued October 29, 1912, for a “coating machine.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of New York. Suit by Charles W. M ayer against A. & H. G. Mutschler and others. From a decree (237 Fed. 654) for complainant, defendants appeal. Tho action is on claims 1 to 4, 7, 8, 14, 15, and 47 to 49, of patent to plaintiff, No. 1,043,021, applied for November 24, 1911, and issued October 29, 1912, for a “coating machine.” The specification covers, as do the very numerous claims, all the parts of a cumbrous and extended, ratber than complicated, mechanism for surfacing paper with materials applied in fluid…
1Opinion of the CourtHough, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). [1] Claims 47-49 seem to us to have been recognized as valid by inadvertence, for as to them we agree with plaintiff’s very distinguished expert, who frankly said that, since the relative positioning of rolls and equalizer was not made a positive element in these claims, “some of the references of the prior art read directly on” them, unless the court could “read into” them the relative positioning aforesaid as “producing a definite result.” We know no method by which one claim or set of claims can be helped out, by judicial incorporation therein of oilier…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Seymour v. OsborneSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Elizabeth v. Pavement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Railroad Supply Co. v. Elyria Iron & Steel Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Delemater v. HeathCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1893
- Covert v. CovertU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western New York · 1901
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- In Re Mahurkar Double Lumen Hemodialysis Catheter Patent LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1993
- Manufacturing Research Corp. v. Graybar Electric Co.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1982
- Beeman v. Georgia Casualty Co.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1931
- Freydberg Bros. v. HamburgerDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1927
- Manufacturing Research Corporation v. Graybar Electric CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1982
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.