Case Name: BETTER PACKAGES, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. LINK & CO., Inc., Louis Link and Charles F. Albers, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1935-03-21
Citations: 75 F.2d 1006
Docket Number: No. 180
Parties: BETTER PACKAGES, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. LINK & CO., Inc., Louis Link and Charles F. Albers, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 75
Pages: 1006–1006

Head Matter:
BETTER PACKAGES, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. LINK & CO., Inc., Louis Link and Charles F. Albers, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 180.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
March 21, 1935.
For former opinion, see 74 F.(2d) 679.
Hammond & Littell, of New York City (Edmund Quincy Moses, Nelson Littell, and Clarence M. Crews, all of New York City, of counsel), for'plaintiff-appellant.
Warfield & Brown, of New York City (Donald L. Brown and Griffith Beems, both S -kTa v- , r t. £ . * . of. New York City, of counsel), for defend-smts-onnMIflTH-Q '
Before L. HAND, SWAN, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Upon the plaintiff's petition for reargument as to reissue patent No. 18,322, we have again carefully considered the question of validity, and wé adhere to our former conclusion. Even if Elliott alone is not enough to anticipate claim _1, we cannot hold that invention was involved in making the adjustments necessary for the patent m suit out of parts shown in Brownson, Pitney, Elliott, and Kreuger's first patent. The defendants' new ground of attack, based on failure to disclaim after Judge Hickenlooper's decision holding invalid certain claims of the parent patent, No. 1,638,815, has not been considered, as it is not presented by this record,