Mine & Smelter Supply Co. v. Braeckel Concentrator Co.

Citations

• 197 F. 897
• 1912 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1504

Syllabus

<p>1. Patents (§ 327*) — Suits fob Infbingement — Pkiob Decisions.</p> <p>While the obligation of comity as applied to patent cases is not imperative, it is something more than courtesy, since it has a substantial value in securing uniformity of decision.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Patents, Cent. Dig. §§ 620-625; Dec. Dig. § 327.*]</p> <p>2. Patents (§ 328*) — Validity and Infbingement — Amendment of Application.</p> <p>The Wilfley patent, No. 590,675, for an ore concentrator, discloses patentable novelty and invention and a very high degree of utility, and is not invalid because of amendments made to the specification and claims while the application was pending in the Patent Office not shown to have been verified; such amendments having been well within the original invention as shown by the drawings and therefore within the scope of the original oath and by way of amplification of description. Claims 1, 2, and 7 also held infringed.</p> <p>3. Patents (§ 109*) — Validity—Amendment of Application.</p> <p>In determining whether matter introduced into an application for a patent by way of amendment is new matter, the original drawings are to be understood with such variations in form, shape, and proportions as common sense and mechanical skill in the art would suggest.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Patents, Cent. Dig. § 152; Dec. Dig. § 109.*</p> <p>Amendment of application for patent, see notes to Cleveland Foundry ' Co. v. Detroit Yapor Stove Co., 68 C. C. A. 239; Hestonville, M. & F. Pass. Ry. Co. v. McDufCee, 109 C. C. A. 613.]</p>