Case Name: WOLLENSAK OPTICAL CO. v. ILEX OPTICAL CO.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1913-11-11
Citations: 209 F. 232
Docket Number: No. 21
Parties: WOLLENSAK OPTICAL CO. v. ILEX OPTICAL CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 209
Pages: 232–232

Head Matter:
WOLLENSAK OPTICAL CO. v. ILEX OPTICAL CO.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
November 11, 1913.)
No. 21.
Patents (§ 328 )—Validity and Infringement—Photographic Shutter.
Tbe Wollensak patents, No. 679,134 and No. 700,878, both relating to photographic shutters, narrowly construed, as they must be in view of the prior art, held not infringed.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of New York.
Suit in equity by the Wollensak Optical Company against the Ilex Optical Company. Decree for defendant;* and complainant appeals.
Affirmed.
For opinion below, see 199 Fed. 923.
This cause comes here upon appeal from a decree of the District Court, Western District of New York, which dismissed a bill for alleged infringement of two U. S. patents. The patents are Nos. 679,-134 and 700,878, both granted to Andrew Wollensak and both relating to photographic shutters. The opinion of the District Judge will be found in 199 Fed. 923.
C. Schuyler Davis, of Rochester, N. Y. (Davis & Dorsey, of Rochester, N. Y., of counsel), for appellant.
H. H. Simms, of Rochester, N. Y., and J. Edgar Bull, of New York City, for appellee.
Before EACOMBE, COXE, and WARD, Circuit Judges.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Dig3.1997 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
It is manifest that this is a crowded art and that there can be no broad range of equivalents. All that the first patent shows is an arrangement inter sese of four operating terminals, all integral with the so-called master-lever. Assuming .that patentee's arrangement was a novel one and that it accomplished sufficient improvement to sustain a patent, it is not infringed by an arrangement, which, as defendant's does, omits one of these four parts.
As to the second patent. In such a crowded art it must be confined to the details shown and embodied in the claims. We concur in Judge Hazel's disposition of the cause and see no reason to add anything to his discussion.
The decree is affirmed with costs.