Robinson v. Digaetano

RIVES, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is taken from the district court’s holding that appellant’s patent for a ventilated metal awning 1 is void and unenforceable for lack of invention and patentable novelty. The court invalidated appellant’s patent on the basis of its finding that it was anticipated by the Matthews awning patent, which this Court held valid and infringed by the Houseman patent in Matthews v. Kool-vent Metal Awning Co., 5 Cir., 158 F.2d 37.

Appellant here insists that in so holding the district court gave an unjustifiably broad construction and range of equivalents to the Matthews…