Court Opinion

ID: 9457072
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:11:26.839716+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:12.443413
License: Public Domain

STEVENS, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
As I read the patent, the words “readily removable,” as used in claims 1 and 3, describe a temporary printing projection which is more readily removable than a conventional character on a conventional linotype slug. Under this construction of the claims, the accused device does not infringe.
My conclusion that the claims should be given this narrow construction is based on the following considerations:
1. Conventional characters can be removed from the slug by using a power driven router,1 or by chipping them off *97one by one with a hammer and chisel.2 On the other hand, all of the temporary printing projections on one of plaintiff’s galleys can be removed by the flick of a quoin key.3 As a matter of fact, plaintiff’s slivers are more “readily removable” than conventional characters.4
2. The repeated emphasis throughout the patent on the ready removability of the temporary printing projection persuades me that the inventor did not contemplate the use of conventional characters on conventional slugs in connection with his novel concept.5
3. If the words “readily removable” as used in claims 1 and 3 describe a conventional character on a conventional slug, those words could be omitted as sur-plusage without broadening the claims.
4. If conventional slugs with conventional identifying characters are not excluded from the scope of claim 2 by the words “readily removable,” as Judge Morgan has demonstrated, that claim is plainly invalid. However, if we were to make the customary presumption that the Patent Office made a correct analysis of the validity of claim 2, it would follow that the Examiner must have read the words “readily removable” more narrowly. I suggest, therefore, that my reading of those key words is presumptively correct.
Because I construe the claims more narrowly than the majority, I respectfully disagree with the conclusion that the use of conventional characters on conventional slugs infringes claims 1 and 3 of plaintiff’s patent.

. The specifications indicate, however, tljat the inventor contemplated removal by manual application of a simple tool. See Patent No. 3,136,248, column 2, lines 33-35.

. In an affidavit the inventor stated that conventional projections could be removed manually “although the handtool operation would require a slightly longer period of time depending on the number of projections to be removed.” (A. 165)

. Plaintiff flicks off the identifying characters after each revised galley has been proofed. The defendant’s system of numbering successive corrections obviates the necessity for removing the identifying characters except on the one occasion prior to preparation for final printing after all corrections have been made.

. The district court made no finding of fact on this precise point because he decided the infringement issue by granting plaintiff’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment. Although plaintiff contends that conventional characters are readily removable within the meaning of the claims, I do not understand plaintiff to dispute the fact that its slivers can be removed more easily than conventional characters.

. See, e. g.:
“More specifically [this invention] relates to a type slug of the same general form as that produced by a conventional typesetting machine, * * * but which is cast with a readily removable printing projection. Such a type slug is utilized in the method disclosed herein as a substitute for a conventional slug originally incorporated in a page of type. The printing projection * * * can be readily eliminated prior to the next printing operation by bodily removal * * * without otherwise disturbing the set type.” Column 1, lines 12-24.
“Obviously the projection 16 could take any other suitable form, insofar as the nature of the printed symbol produced thereby is concerned. However, it should have a configuration such that it is readily removable from the face of the slug by the use of a simple tool having an edge capable of cutting off the metal forming the projection 16 from the body of the slug when manually applied thereto.” Column 2, lines 28-35.
See also claims 1 and 3 quoted in footnote 6 of Judge Morgan’s opinion.