Document: 338 U.S. 267 70 S.Ct. 25 94 L.Ed. 62 FAULKNERv.GIBBS. No. 19. Argued Oct. 12, 1949. Decided Nov. 7, Rehearing Denied Dec. 5, See 896, 236. Messrs. Robert W. Fulwider, Los Angeles, Cal., James P. Burns, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Mr. Herbert A. Huebner, respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 The controversy here concerned the validity of Patent 1,906,260, issued to respondent, May 2, 1933, and its alleged infringement by District Court found patent be valid infringed. Appeals Ninth Circuit affirmed, 1948, 170 F.2d 34. Being moved petition certiorari that there was a conflict with Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker, 1946, 329 1, 67 6, 91 3, we granted certiorari. 336 935, 69 746. 2 record, briefs arguments counsel lead us view Halliburton, supra, is inapposite. We held invalid because language too broad at precise point novelty. In instant case, has been sustained fact combination rather than novelty any particular element. 3 After suit in this cause initiated Court, petitioner modified his device. courts below modification insubstantial did not place outside scope respondent's patent. 4 will disturb concurrent findings upon issues presented are persuaded shown clearly erroneous. judgment affirmed. 5 Affirmed. 6 Justice BLACK opinion claims where novelty, if anywhere. 7 DOUGLAS took no part consideration or decision case.

Category: 7