Case Name: SELECTASINE PATENTS CO. et al. v. PREST-O-GRAPH CO. et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1921-10-24
Citations: 276 F. 260
Docket Number: No. 3628
Parties: SELECTASINE PATENTS CO. et al. v. PREST-O-GRAPH CO. et al.
Judges: Before GILBERT, ROSS, and HUNT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 276
Pages: 260–266

Head Matter:
SELECTASINE PATENTS CO. et al. v. PREST-O-GRAPH CO. et al.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
October 24, 1921.)
No. 3628.
Patents <@=>328 — 1,254,764, for method of delineating or reproducing pictures and designs, held valid and infringed.
The Owens, Beck & Steinman patent, No. 1,254,764, for method of delineating or reproducing pictures and designs in multicolors by the use of a screen, producing an embossed effect, as limited to the use only of a single screen, held not anticipated, valid, and infringed.
Hunt, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
Appeal and Cross-Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Oregon; Charles E. Wolverton, Judge.
Suit in equity by the Selectasine Patents Company and another against the Prest-O-Graph Company and others. Decree for complainants with limitation of claims, and complainants appeal and defendants file cross-appeal.
Affirmed.
For opinion below, see 267 Fed. 840.
Chas. E. Townsend, of San Francisco, Cal., and Cassius R. Peck, and Griffith, Deiter & Allen, all of Portland, Or., for appellants.
Joseph D. Atkins, Leicester B. Atkins, and Atkins & Atkins, all of Portland, Or., for appellees.
Before GILBERT, ROSS, and HUNT, Circuit Judges.
Rehearing granted January 16, 1922.

Opinion:
ROSS, Circuit Judge.
This suit was brought for the alleged infringement of certain letters patent relating to "method of delineating or reproducing pictures and designs."
The gist of the patented process, as we view it, is the building of color upon color in producing their multicolor picture designs, thereby producing a certain embossed effect. The nearest approach to anticipation shown by the record is the English patent to Simon, and we agree with the court below, for reasons stated in its opinion and which, therefore, need not be repeated, that the complainant's process was not anticipated by that of Simon. "We think the Patent Office rightly held novel the process here claimed, and that it is highly useful is abundantly shown by the evidence.
That the defendants to the suit infringed by using the same process in the production of their designs and pictures — sometimes, it is true, by tlie use of a single screen and sometimes by the use of a plurality oí screens — clearly appears from the record. In each instance the same process was used.
It is enough to say, in answer to the contení ion of the cross-appel-iecs, that the injunction granted should have been extended to the use of a plurality of screens; that none of the claims of the patent sued-on covered more than one screen.
The judgment is affirmed.