in the light of the rejected claims and the prior art, it is evident that the inventional elements are restricted to those hereinabove underlined. The claims are limited to a pocket, adjacent to the reel entrance (the point at which the film is inserted), so designed and constructed as to prevent displacement of the film.
III. The said claims are anticipated by the disclosures of the prior art, as exemplified in the Pless Patent (No. 2,112,605), the Stevens Patent (No. 1,921,012), the Steward Patent (No. 746,756), and the Pejois Patent (French -- No. 807,882). The said prior art patents are directed to film processing devices similar to that of the present patentee, and make specific reference to locking devices so designed and constructed as to prevent the displacement of the film. The present alleged invention is undoubtedly an improvement, but it cannot, however, be characterized as an "invention." It necessarily follows that the claims in suit cannot be sustained because of anticipation.
IV.The absence of invention is, in the opinion of the Court, beyond question. The claims, even when considered per se, without reference to the prior art, disclose nothin more than common mechanical ingenuity. The claims, therefore, are invalid because of the lack of invention.
V. The defendant during the period from March 28, 1939, to July 27, 1939, had been engaged in the manufacture and sale of a film processing device, not only similar to, but identical with that to which the claims in suit are directed. This product is referred to herein as the "first" device. This fact is not disputed. It, therefore, follows that if the claims in suit are valid the defendant has infringed.
VI. The defendant is, and has been, engaged since July 27, 1939, in the manufacture and sale of a film processing device similar to, but not identical with, that to which the claims in suit are directed. The defendant has eliminated the pocket and has constructed across the peripheral groove a dentate wall; this construction is extended to prevent displacement of the film. This device does not infringe the claims in suit.
Conclusions of Law.
I. Claims 3, 4 and 6 of the patent in suit are invalid for the reasons hereinabove stated.
II. The "second" device of the defendant does not infringe the claims in suit.
A judgment in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff may be entered.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.