Kip-Armstrong Co. v. Mills

Citations

• 130 F. 28
• 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4790

Syllabus

<p>1. Patents — Construction of Claims — “Rotary” Part.</p> <p>The word “rotary,” used in a claim of a patent to Rescribe an element of a combination, does not necessarily imply a continuous rotation of the part, so as to make it necessary to limit the claim by reading into it as-an additional element mechanism for such rotation, but is properly descriptive if the part is capable of being rotated by hand or otherwise.</p> <p>2. Same — Infringement—Warp Stop-Motion for Loom.</p> <p>The Baker patent, No. 595,688, for a warp stop-motion for looms, claim-5, construed, and held not anticipated, valid, and infringed.</p>