Case Name: BATES MACHINE CO. v. WILLIAM A. FORCE & CO.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1907-02-26
Citations: 152 F. 634
Docket Number: No. 158
Parties: BATES MACHINE CO. v. WILLIAM A. FORCE & CO.
Judges: Before LACOMBE, TOWNSEND, and COXE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 152
Pages: 634–634

Head Matter:
BATES MACHINE CO. v. WILLIAM A. FORCE & CO.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
February 26, 1907.)
No. 158.
Patents — Inekingement—Numbering Machines.
Tbe Bates patent, No. 721,276, for a typographic numbering machine, narrowly construed as required by the prior art, held not infringed.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
Appeal from decree dismissing bill.
For opinion below, see 145 Fed. 526.
F. W. Wright, for appellant.
W. S. Warland, for appellee.
Before LACOMBE, TOWNSEND, and COXE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We fully concur in the conclusion of the circuit court that the patentee was in no sense a pioneer, and must be limited to the specific construction described and claimed. Defendant was entitled to use the recess, larger than the drop-block, the drop-block, and the cam or other device on the shaft for moving it in and out; also to a drop-block susceptible of a slight sidewise motion, since we are satisfied that there was such motion disclosed in Rheinhardt, 1890. The only thing left to be done .to organize a working structure was to employ means for guiding and holding the drop-block in proper position when pressed outwards from the shaft. We are clearly of the opinion that the means employed by defendant to accomplish this purpose, viz., the straight edge, n, and the face of the recess, m2, more nearly resemble the device in Rheinhardt, 1890, viz., the straight edge of the wheel body (not lettered), and the face of the recess on the opposite side with which the projection, w', engages, than it does the "shoulders" described and made an element of the three claims sued upon.
The decree is affirmed, with costs.