Mastini v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company
| Decision Date | 29 November 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 23,30806.,Dockets 29628,222,23 |
| Citation | 369 F.2d 378 |
| Parties | Domenico MASTINI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY and Western Electric Company, Defendants-Appellees. Domenico MASTINI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Hyman Hurvitz, Washington, D. C. (Domenico Mastini, pro se, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.
Henry R. Ashton, New York City (Albert E. Fey, New York City, on the brief), for defendants-appellees.
Before MEDINA, KAUFMAN and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Mastini was granted patent No. 2,129,332, on September 6, 1938, covering a particular type of mobile radio-telephone system, which he now claims has been infringed by the radiotelephone system developed by the appellee American Telephone and Telegraph Company and now in common use. The operation of the appellee's system has been stipulated: the remote, or mobile, radio transmitter emits a radio signal which is received by a stationary terminal and forwarded to a special operator at a toll switchboard. When a light flashes on this switchboard, the operator connects the remote caller into the standard telephone network. Thus, the connection of the remote caller with the standard network is done manually by one of appellee's operators located on appellee's property.
The Mastini patent describes "means" by which signals from the remote radio-telephone "cause the disconnection of the local sub-station" from the standard network and simultaneously cause the connection of the remote radiotelephone. The controversy turns on the proper construction of the words we have emphasized. Mastini asserts that "cause" must be read to include appellee's manual operator and that "local sub-station" includes appellee's switchboard. Chief Judge Ryan held that appellant was estopped to assert that the Mastini patent included any other than an automatic disconnection. He also held the Mastini patent "limited to a combination which contained a single subscriber's telephone." As we agree that the File Wrapper clearly shows the Mastini patent was so limited, there is no genuine dispute as to the facts and the granting of summary judgment was proper. Vermont Structural Slate Co. v. Tatko Bros. Slate Co., 233 F.2d 9 (2 Cir., 1956).
Chief Judge Ryan correctly concluded that the Mastini patent was limited to automatic means. The patent itself sets out in detail the functioning of an automatic system but does not mention the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stebbins v. Keystone Insurance Company
...of suit. We have no occasion to reconsider the appropriate rule for that particular situation. 22 See Mastini v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 369 F.2d 378 (2d Cir., 1966), cert. denied, 387 U.S. 933, 87 S.Ct. 2055, 18 L.Ed.2d 994 (1967); Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. v. Barrett, 246 F.2d 846 (9th C......
-
Weldon v. US
...an attempt to relitigate the case. Fleming v. New York University, 865 F.2d 478, 484 (2d Cir.1989); Mastini v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 369 F.2d 378, 379 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 387 U.S. 933, 87 S.Ct. 2055, 18 L.Ed.2d 994 (1967); Nederlandsche Handel-Maatschappij, N.V. v. J......
-
Xerox Corporation v. Dennison Manufacturing Company
...article with the patent illustration); Mastini v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 236 F.Supp. 310 (S.D.N.Y.1964), affd., 369 F.2d 378 (2d Cir. 1966) (only a legal issue—no factual issue raised); Dal-Bac (Pty) Ltd. v. Firma Astorwerk Otto Berning & Co., 244 F.Supp. 516 (S.D. N.Y.1965) (b......
-
Tri-Wall Containers, Inc. v. Continental Can Co.
...anticipated by prior art coupled with the subsequent narrowing of the claims to overcome the disallowance. Mastini v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 369 F.2d 378 (2d Cir. 1966). The file wrapper history of the patent in suit fails to support a finding that the second prerequisite has b......