Case ID: f_155/html/0278-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

POTTER v. LAKE SHORE NOVELTY CO.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
    June 26, 1907.)
    No. 1,647.
    Patents — Invention—Detonating Device.
    The Potter patent, No. 689,906, for a detonating device for exploding toy torpedoes, is void for lack of invention and anticipation.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio.
    In Equity. Suit for infringement of letters patent No. 689,906, for a detonating device granted to George M. Potter December 31, 1901.
    The following is the opinion of the Circuit Court by Tayler, District Judge:
    This is a bill in equity, wherein the complainant claims that the defendant is infringing patent No. 689,906, relating to a detonating device for exploding toy torpedoes, granted to the complainant. The bill asks for the usual relief. The defendant denies infringement, and also the validity of the patent The case is here on final hearing.
    
      Without going into a recital of the nature of the patent and the testimony-introduced on the issues made, it is enough for me to announce my conclusion, as follows:
    1. If all that the complainant did was to obtain the patent for casting the partition separating the explosion chamber and the socket integrally, instead of forming the partition from a separate piece and securing it in place by a rivet or set screw, then I find that the complainant was not the inventor of such a method.
    2. As to the other claim of novelty and usefulness in the patent, I find that it is not novel, having been anticipated by other patents.
    Decree may therefore be entered dismissing the bill, at the complainant’s costs.
    S. B. Fouts and T. W. Bakewell, for appellant.
    H. A. Toulmin, for appellee.
    Before BURTON, SEVERENS, and RICHARDS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

This cause is affirmed upon the opinion of the court below.