Schram Glass Mfg. Co. v. Homer Brooke Glass Co.
| Decision Date | 02 February 1920 |
| Docket Number | 2752. |
| Citation | 263 F. 903 |
| Parties | SCHRAM GLASS MFG. CO. v. HOMER BROOKE GLASS CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the Southern District of Illinois.
Suit by the Homer Brooke Glass Company against the Schram Glass Manufacturing Company. From a supplemental decree for complainant, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Russell Wiles, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Charles Neave, of Boston, Mass., for appellee.
Before BAKER, ALSCHULER, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.
In Schram Glass Mfg. Co. v. Homer Brooke Glass Co., 249 F. 228, 161 C.C.A. 264, we found that the Brooke patent, No 723,983, was valid and was being infringed by the apparatus then in use by the appellant. That report is referred to for an exposition of the Brooke patent.
This appeal is from the supplemental decree holding that appellant is guilty of infringing the Brooke patent by using the Steimer patent, No. 549,404, with other mechanical means, so as to constitute 'an automatic device for cutting or separating an unsupported freely flowing stream of molten material into unformed molten masses. ' Steimer's device is explained in our former opinion.
In holding that the Steimer measuring instrument did not comprise sufficient means to constitute the Brooke automatic device, and therefore did not anticipate the Brooke invention, we had supposed that it would be sufficiently clear to appellant that it was not at liberty to add to Steimer the Brooke means of constructing and using an automatic device.
Appellant's misapprehension results from assuming that 'a cutting knife and means for moving the same and means for supporting the severed stream' constitute the automatic device that Brooke explained in his specification and covered in each of his claims. We can conceive of no method, and on inquiry of appellant at the argument failed to learn, how the three elements, the cutting knife, and means for moving the same and means for supporting the severed stream, can be made into an automatic device for molding glass. Brooke's claims do not say that his device consists of those three elements and none other. Each claim calls for an automatic device 'comprising'-- that is, including-- the three named elements.
When we learn from Brooke's specification that his method of producing automatically molded articles of glass requires the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
IF Laucks, Inc. v. Kaseno Products Co.
...et al., 102 U. S. 707, 731, 26 L. Ed. 279; Hoskins Mfg. Co. v. General Electric Co. (D. C.) 212 F. 422, 428; Schram Glass Mfg. Co. v. Homer Brooke Glass Co. (C. C. A.) 263 F. 903. Claim 3, it has been contended, is void because the invention of the reissue patent is not the invention taught......