Case ID: f2d_9/html/0922-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ALSCHULER, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HUNT, HELM, FERRIS & CO. v. ELBERT et al.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    December 8, 1925.)
    No. 3320.
    Patents <®=»328 — 988,561, claims I and 4, for animal stall, not infringed.
    No. 988,561, claims 1 and 4, for animal stall, held not infringed.
    Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Wisconsin.
    Patent infringement suit- by Hunt, Helm, Perris & Co., against George A. Elbert and another. Prom a decree dismissing bill (296 P. 921), plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed-.
    Russell Wiles, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
    Lewis T. Greist, of Chicago, Ill., for appellees.
    Before ALSCHULER, EVANS, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
   ALSCHULER, Circuit Judge.

The appeal is from deeree finding noninfringement of claims 1 and 4 of United States patent No. 988,561, to Hunt, Helm & Perris, assignees, 1911, for an animal stall.

With the views of the District Court upon the claims in issue (296 P. 921) we are quite in accord. As to claim 1, we find that in appellees’ structure there is wholly wanting the forward and backward adjustability of the frame which holds the stanchion, an essential element of the claim. Appellees’ .alleged infringing adjustability consists in means for widening or narrowing the distances between the frames of several stalls, which in that structure can be done only at time of installation, after which the adjustment thus made remains permanent.

As to claim 4 we agree with the District Court in its holding that, if it were construed as broadly as its language alone would admit, it would be void upon thé prior art, but that, if it has validity, it is only when read in the light of the limitations of the specification, as well as the prior art, and that when so limited the claim is not infringed.

The deeree of the District Court is affirmed.