Opinion ID: 400987
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Differences Between the Prior Art and the Patent in Issue

Text: 11 The '236 patent differs from the '624 patent primarily in that the side-securing means are no longer grooved or channelled latches, but now include strap elements which pass around the side of the mask, and are then secured to the side of the helmet. The difference from '624 is thus that the mask is now tied to the sides of the helmet, rather than merely wedged into a resilient holder attached to the helmet sides. Schutt claims that '236 has two principal advantages over '624: 12 (1) It provides some movement or resilience to absorb impacts, thereby reducing the danger of injury to the player and damage to the helmet; 13 (2) It permits cutting the side straps to raise the mask and afford access to the player's face and airway. 14 The latter advantage is not mentioned in the patent although reference to it is made in the file wrapper. 15 We conclude that the differences between '236 and the prior art, as found in '624, are minimal. Both '624 and '236 involve a pivoting center hinge mounting with resilient straps. Both use resilient side-securing means intended to provide resilience to absorb impacts. As to the argument that the straps in '236 can be cut to gain access to a player's face, we note that this advantage was not claimed in the '236 patent itself. As the Supreme Court commented in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. at 25, 86 S.Ct. at 697: 16 Petitioners' argument basing validity on the freeflex theory raised for the first time on appeal is reminiscent of Lincoln Engineering Co. v. Stewart-Warner Corp., 303 U.S. 545 (58 S.Ct. 662, 82 L.Ed. 1008) (1938), where the court called such an effort an afterthought. No such function ... is hinted at in the specifications of the patent. If this were so vital an element in the functioning of the apparatus it is strange that all mention of it was omitted. 17 Moreover, this feature is not materially different from the swing-away feature of the '624 patent which would permit such access without requiring any cutting of the straps. Because we reject Schutt's contention that the '236 patent had advantages not found in '624, there is no issue of material fact on this question either.