Case ID: f_168/html/0090-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MISSISSIPPI WIRE-GLASS CO. v. PITTSBURGH PLATE-GLASS CO.
    (Circuit Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.
    February 5, 1909.)
    No. 25.
    Patents (§ 328) — Novelty—Machine and Method fob Making Wire-Glass.
    The Baldwin patents, No. 800,131, for a machine for making wire-glass, and No. 847,637, for a method of making wire-glass, are void for lack of patentable novelty, in view of the prior art.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Patents, Dec. Dig. § 328.]
    In Equity.
    Kerr, Page, Cooper & Hayward (Thomas B. Kerr, Thomas W. Bakewell, and Drury W. Cooper, of counsel), for complainant.
    Christy & Christy (Bayard H. Christy, George H. Christy, and Frederick P. Fish, of counsel), for defendant.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § numbek in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes»
    
   BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

In this case the complainant charges infringement of letters patent No. 800,131, granted September 26, 1905, to Arthur J. Baldwin, for a machine for making wire-glass, and patent No. 847,637, granted March 19, 1907, for a method of making wire-glass. The machine patent is for a structure so near akin to the respondent’s table-roll machine, which we have considered in an opinion filed herewith, in a case between these same parties, that, if we are correct in our estimate of that machine, this patent is void for lack of patentable novelty.

As to the method patent, we are clear that, in view of the patents of Schmertz, Appert, and Shuman, it lacks patentable novelty.

Bet a decree be drawn accordingly dismissing the bill.