Hanifen v. Armitage

Citations

• 117 F. 845
• 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5142

Syllabus

<p>1. Divided Court—Precedent—Conflicting Circuit Decisions.</p> <p>Am affirmance by a divided court establishes no precedent or principle. Where, therefore, a patent has been held valid by the court of appeals of one circuit and invalid by the court of appeals of another, which on appeal is affirmed in the supreme court by an even division of the judges, this will not overcome the effect of the first-mentioned decision, which must be regarded as controlling in that circuit.</p> <p>2. Patents—Mechanical Skill and Adaptation—Invention.</p> <p>No doubt it is not every slight advance in the art, such as is constantly being made by mere mechanical skill and adaptation, that is to be considered invention. It is at the same time recognized that the impalpable something which is said to distinguish invention from simple mechanical skill is not easy to discriminate or define, and in the attempt to judge of it after long lapse of years the courts are in danger of being misled by the increased intermediate knowledge.</p> <p>8. Same—Invention.</p> <p>One criterion of invention is that others have sought and failed, even where the process is so simple, when discovered, that many believe they could have produced it, if required.</p> <p>4. Same—Anticipation—Construction of Foreign Patents.</p> <p>The construction of a foreign patent as an anticipation is not governed by what might have been made out of it, but by what is inherent, and substantially'displayed in it.</p> <p>5. Same—Infringement—Knitted Astrakhan.</p> <p>The Bywater patent, No. 374,888, for a knitted fabric having a smooth back and a face of looped yarn, matted and curly, to resemble Astrakhan cloth, was not anticipated, and is valid. Claim 2 also construed, and held infringed.</p>