United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the.

The Industrial reorganization act. Hearings, Ninety-third Congress, first session [-Ninety-fourth Congress, first session], on S. 1167 (Volume pt. 7) online

. (page 139 of 140)
Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. Senate. Committee on theThe Industrial reorganization act. Hearings, Ninety-third Congress, first session [-Ninety-fourth Congress, first session], on S. 1167 (Volume pt. 7) → online text (page 139 of 140)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


Honeywell equipment.

23 1.22 If Claim 109 is valid, it is infringed by each of the following Honeywell
products : H-201-^, H-201-1, H-201-2, H-121, H-1201, H-2201. H-4201, H-111 /
121/126, H-800, H-400, and D-1000. Each of these products contains the combina-
tion of elements required by Claim 109 and the claim applies in the same manner
as in the ENIAC patent.

23.1.23 Claim 142 relates to a particular type of timing mechanism for a data
processing machine. Both the Honeywell products H-201-0, H-201-1, H-201-2.
H-121, H-2201, and D-1000 and the apparatus in the ENIAC patent have similar
circuits used for the timing of the computer and each of them has as its purpose
the production of pulses of accurately determined duration at an accurately known
frequency, which is related as a submultiple of the source frequency.

23 1 24 If Claim 142 is valid, it is infringed by each of the following Honeywell
products : H-201-0, H-201-1, H-201-2, H-121, H-2201, and D-1000. Each of these
products contains the combination of elements required by Claim 142 and the
claim applies in the same manner as in the ENIAC patent.

23.1.25 Claim 36 relates to a combination of elements for the interruption of
the apparatus which controls the sequencing of a computer whereby its operations
may be stepped manually at a slow rate through steps it would ordinarily .step
though at electronic speeds.

23.1.26 The apparatus described in the ENIAC patent to which Claim 36 is ap-
plicable includes the cycling unit which can be halted and caused to advance
manually.

23.1.27 If Claim 36 is valid, it is infringed by each of the following Honeywell
products: H-201-0, H-201-1, H-201-2, H-121, H-1201, H-2201, H-4201, PI-
111/121/126, and D-1000. Each of these products contains the combination of
elements required by Claim 36 and the claim applies in the same manner as in
the ENIAC patent.

28.1.28 Claim 122 also relates to the facility for manually advancing the op-
erations of the computer and additionally requires certain display means.

23.1.29 If Claim 122 is valid it is infringed 1)V each of the following Honeywell
products: H-201-0, H-201-1, H-201-2, H-121, H-120]. H-2201, H-4201, and
H-111/121/126. Each of these products contains the combination of elements
called for by Claim 122 and the claim applies in the same manner as in the ENIAC
patent.



5903

23.1.30 Claim 8 relates to an electronic computing system in which a control
system of pulses is used to manipulate numbers in a series of units constructed
for that purpose and some of which are constructed to do arithmetic operations.

23.1.31 Claim 8 was ENIAC patent application Claim 39 and was in Interfer-
ence 85,809 in the U.S. Patent Office [in which the Patent Office held Williams
had priority on his 1942 invention] and in litigation [but not on any issue of
priority] in Sperry Rand Corp. v. Bell Telephone Labs, Inc., 208 F. Supp. 598,
135 USPQ 254 (S.D.N.Y. 1962), appeal dismissed [as mooted by settlement] 317
F.2d 491, 137 USPQ 497 (2d Cir. 1963).

23 1.32 If Claim 8 is valid, it is infringed by each of the following Honeywell
products: H-201-0, H-201-1, II-201-2, 11-121, H-1201, H-2201, H-4201 and
H-111/121/126. Each of these products contains the combination of elements
required by Claim 8 and the claim applies in the same manner as in the ENIAC
patent.

23.1.33 Claim 9 is similar to Claim 8, except that among other distinctions
Claim 9 calls for a multiplicity of arithmetic units and the requirement to emit
pulse signals significant of the numerical result of respective arithmetic opera-
tions.

23.1.34 If Claim 9 is valid, it is infringed by each of the following Honeywell
products : H-201-2 and H-4201. Each of these products contains the combination
of elements required^by Claim 9 and the claim applies in the same manner as in
the ENIAC patent.

23.1.35 Claim 83 of the ENIAC patent pertains to the provision of a reservoir
for input data and output data so arranged and connected as to permit a very
much slower inputting device to operate effectively with a very much faster
processor by collecting the input data in a temporary storage means before proc-
essing it and placing the data to the output in a second temporary storage means
prior to transferring it at a slow rate of speed (as compared to electronic speeds)
to an output device. Both the apparatus described in the ENIAC patent and
Honeywell products H-201-0, H-201-1, H-201-2, H-121, H-1201, H-2201, H-
4201, H-111/121/126, -800, H-400, and D-1000 provide the samae function in this
respect.

23.1.36 If Claim 83 is valid, it is infringed by each of the following Honeywell
products: H-201-0, H-201-1, H-201-2, H-121, H-1201, H-2201, H-^201, H-
111/121/26. H-800, H-400, and D-1000. Each of these products contains the
combination of elements required by Claim 83 and the claim applies in the same
manner as in the ENIAC patent.

23.1.37 Claim 86 relates to another aspect of input operation described in the
ENIAC patent and to a similar or parallel operation in the Honeywell systems.
Specifically it relates to the ability to perform data processing operations simul-
taneously wdth the transmission of data from an input device and the ability
to condition continuation of additional data processing operations on the com-
pletion of the input operation and the completion of the concurrent data proc-
essing operation. Both the apparatus described in the ENIAC patent and Honey-
well equipment H-201-0, H-201-1, H-201-2. H-121, H-1201, H-2201, 11-4201,
H-111/121/26, H-800, H^OO. and D-1000 perform the same function.

23.1.38 If Claim 86 is valid, it is infringed by each of the following Honeywell
products. H-201-0, H-201-1, H-201-2, H-121, H-1201, 11-2201, H-4201, H-111/
122/126, H-800, H-400, and D-1000. Each of these products contains the combina-
tion of elements required by Claim 86 and the claim applies in the same man-
ner as in the ENIAC patent.

23.1.39 Claim 88 pertains to a data processing machine having a capacity for
synchronization of data transfer operations lietween a device with a timer
operating at one rate and a second device with a timer operating at a second
rate.

23.1.40 If Claim 88 is valid, it is infringed bv each of the followinsr Honeywell
products : H-201-0, H-201-1, H-201-2, H-121, H-1201, H-2201, H-4201. H-111/
121/126, H-800, H^OO, and D-1000. Each of these products contains the com-
bination of elements required by Claim 88 and the claim applies in the same
manner as in the ENIAC patent.

23.1.41 With respect to each of Claims 8, 9, 36. 52, .5.5. 56. 57. 65, 69, 75. 78,
83, 86, 88. 109. 122 and 142. the specified combination of elements finds response
in a combination of elements in each Honeywell product which infringes such
claims ; providing that the definition of the term "pulse" is that stated in the 1963
Amendment; thereby, the combination of elements in each infringing Honeywell



5904

product cooperates in the same general way and for the same general purpose
:as that described in the ENIAC patent.

23.1.42 The meaning of the words of the 17 claims of the EXIAC patent in
suit is the same as appUed both to the apparatus of the EXIAC patent and
the accused Honeywell equipment.

23.1.43 During the trial, Honeywell adduced no evidence controverting the clear
evidence of infringement.

[54] 23.1.44 In determining whether an accused device infringes a valid patent,
resort must be had in the first instance to the words of the claim. If the accused
matter falls clearly within the claim, infringement is made out and that is the
'end of it.

23.1.45 If any of the seventeen claims of the EXIAC patent in suit is valid,
ISD is entitled to an injunction against continued infringement by Honeywell
■ of any such claim.

24. Damages

24.1 Xeither plaintiff nor defendants are entitletl to any damages except as
follows :

24.2 If it is later determined that plaintiff has proved fraud on the Patent
Office, plaintiff will be permitted to establish that part of its attorneys' fees
and costs attributable to its antitrust claim.

24.3 If it is later determined that defendants have violated the antitrust
laws, plaintiff will be permitted to establit^h the damage to its business or property
where damages can be proved within the limitation period.

24.4 If it is later determined that the EXIAC patent is valid and enforceable
and infringed, defendants will be permitted to establish their infringement
-tlamages.

24.5 I do not believe this to be an exceptional case and do not believe that
reasonable attorneys' fees should be awarded to the prevailing party in the
patent part of this litigation.

24.6 If it is decided on appeal or on remand that this is an exceptional case,
Teasonable attorneys' fees will be awarded to the prevailing party.

25. Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

25.1 I find that the EXIAC is invalid and unenforceable and that plaintiff is
•entitled to a declaration to that effect.

25.2 I find that plaintiff' is entitled to an injunction restraining defendants
from enforcing or attempting to enforce the monopoly created by the invalid
:EXIAC patent.

25.3 I find that if the EXIAC is later declared valid, that defendants are
•entitled to an injunction against continued infringement by plaintiff.

26. Order for Judgment

26.1 The clerk shall enter judgment forthwith on these findings and conclusions
.as follows :

26.1.1 The EXIAC patent, U.S. Patent Serial Xo. 3,120,606 of Illinois Scientific
Developments, Inc ("ISD") is hereby declared to be invalid and unenforceable.
The counterclaim of ISD against Honeywell is dismissed.

26.1.2 Defendants and each of them and their respective officers, agents,
.servants, employees and all persons in active concert or participation with them
-or either of them who receive actual notice of this judgment by personal
service or otherwise be and they hereby are permanently restrained and enjoined,
pending further order, from enforcing or attempting to enforce the invalid EXIAC
patent aforesaid against Honeywell, its subsidiaries, successors, privies or
;aquired mediately or immediately from Honeywell.

26.1.3 For the defendant Sperry Rand Corporation and against plaintiff Honey-
well Inc.. on Counts 1 and III of plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint.

26.1.4 Xeither plaintiff nor defendants are entitled to an award of costs.



1.1.1.11, 35 U.S.C 102(b).

2.1.1, 35 U.S.O.§ 102(b).

2.1.2, 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
2.1.8, 35 U.S.C.i 102(b).

3.1.2, 35 U.S.C. § 102(f).



5905

Appendix
1. Public Use

2. On Sale

3. Atanasoff

4. Inventors



4.3.22, 35 U.S.C. Section 282 ; RCA v. Radio Engineering Labs., Inc., 293 U.S.
1, 8, 21 USPQ 353, 355-356 (1934).

4.3.23, RCA V. Radio Engineering Labs., Inc., 293 U.S. 1, 8, 21 USPQ 353, 355-
356 (1934) ; Acme Highway Products Corp. v. D. S. Brown Co., 431 F.2d 1074,
1083, 167 USPQ 129, 135-136 (6th Cir. 1970).

4.3.25, 35 U.S.C. Section 282 ; see Leeds & Catlin v. Victor Talking Machine Co.,
213 U.S. 301, 319 (1909).

4.3.26, Agawam Co. v. Jordan, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 583 (1868) ; Hobbs v. United
States Atomic Energy Comm., 451 F.2d 849, 864-65, 171 USPQ 713, 723-725 (5tb
Cir. 1971).

4.3.28, The Telephones Cases, 126 U.S. 1, 561-63 (1888) ; Larson v. Crowther,
26 F.2d 780, 788-89 (Sth Cir. 1828).

7. First Draft Report

7.1.2.3, 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

8. AMP Report and Burks Article

8.2.5. Griswold v. Oil Capital Valve Co., 375 P.2d 532. 537, 152 USPQ 95, 97-98-
(10th Cir. 1966) ; McCullough Tool Co. v. Well Surveys, Inc., 343 F.2d 381, 398.

1J5 USPQ 6, 19-20 (10th Cir. 1965), cert, denied, 383 U.S. 933, 148 USPQ 772
(1966) ; Greening Nursery Co. v. J and R Tool and Mfg. Co.. 376 F.2d 738, 740,

153 USPQ 660, 661-662 (8th Cir. 1967) ; 35 U.S.C. Section 103.

8.2.6, Griswold v. Oil Capital Valve Co.. 375 F.2d 532. 537, 152 USPQ 95, 97-98
(10th Cir. 1966) ; McCullough Tool Co. v. Well Surveys. Inc., 343 F.2d 381, 398,
145 USPQ 6. 19-20 (10th Cir. 1965), cert, denied. 383 U.S. 933. 1^8 USPQ 772
(1966) : Greening Nursery Co. v. ,T and R Tool and Mfg. Co.. 376 F.2d 738, 740,
1.53 USPQ 660, 661-662 (Sth Cir. 1967) ; 35 U.S.C. Section 103.

9. Description

9.1.2, U.S.C. Section 112 (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure Section
702) ; Eversharp, Inc. v. Fisher Pen Co., Inc., 204 F.Supp. 649, 671-72, 132 USPQ
423, 440-441 (N.D. 111. 1961) : 35 U.S.C. Section 282.

9.1.4, Kesling v. General Motors Corp.. 66 F.Supp. 1, 6, 70 USPQ 485, 489 (E.D.
Mo. 1946), aff'd, 164 F.2d 824. 76 USPQ 30 (1947) ; Suczek v. General Motors
Corp.. 35 F.Supp 806. 809, 47 USPQ 376, 379-380 (E.D. Mich. 1940), affd, 132 F.2d
371, 56 USPQ 45 (6th Cir. 1942) ; Bowser, Inc. v. United States, 388 F.2d 346,
349 (Ct. CI. 1967).

10. Pulse

10.1.7.1, Webster Electric Co. v. Splitdorf Electrical Co., 264 U.S. 463, 465-
(1924) ; Muncie Gear Works, Inc. v. Outboard Marine & Mfg. Co., 315 U.S. 759,
768, 53 USPQ 1, 5 (1942).

10.1.7.2, Standard Oil Development Co. v. James B. Berry Sons Co., 92 F.2d
386, 388, 35 USPQ 102, 104-105 (3rd Cir. 1937) ; General Foods Corp. v. Perk



5906

Foods Co., 419 F.2cl 944, 948-949, 164 USPQ 1, 3-4 (Tth Cir. 1969), cert, denied, 397
U.S. 1038, 165 USPQ 290 (1970) .

10.1.7.3, Webster Electric Co. v. Splitdorf Electrical Co., 264 U.S. 463 (1924) ;
General Foods Corp. v. Perk Foods Co., 419 F.2d 944, 164 USPQ 1 (7tli Cir.
1969), cert, denied, 397 U.S. 1038, 165 USPQ 290 (1970).

10.1.7.4, Scliriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., 305 U.S. 47, 39 USPQ
242 (1938) ; Webster Electric Co. v. Splitdorf Electrical Co., 264 U.S. 463, 465
(1924) ; General Foods Corp. v. Perk Foods Co., 419 F.2d 944, 164 USPQ 1 (7tli
Cir. 1969), cert, denied, 397 U.S. 1038, 165 USPQ 290 (1970).

10.1.7.5, Scliriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., 305 U.S. 47, 39 USPQ
242 (1938) ; Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Hughes Tool Co., 192 F.2d 620, 91
USPQ 277 (10th Cir. 1951).

10.1.7.6, Railway Co. v. Sayles, 97 U.S. 554, 563 (1878) ; Tropic- Aire, Inc. v.
Sears, Roebuck & Co., 44 F.2d 580, USPQ 301 (8th Cir. 1930), cert, denied, 282
U.S. 904 (1931) ; Pratt and Whitney Co. v. United States, 345 F.2d 838, 843, 145
USPQ 429, (Ct. CI. 1965).

11. Delay

11.5.9, Sperry Rand Corp. v. Bell Telephone Labs, 208 F.Supp. 598, 135 USPQ
254 (S.D. N.Y. 1962).

11.7, Woodbridge v. United States, 263 U.S. 50 (1923).

11.7.1, Woodbridge v. United States, 263 U.S. 50 (1923).

11.7.2, Lowry v. Allen, 203 U.S. 476 (1906).

11.12.1, Sperry Rand Corp. v. Bell Telephone Labs., Inc., 208 F. Supp. 598, 600,
601, 135 USPQ 254. 256 (S.D. N.Y. 1962).
11.13.1.3, 35 U.S.C. Section 151.

11.14.4, Overland Motor Co. v. Packard Motor Co., 274 U.S. 417, 425 (1927).

11.14.5, Overland Motor Co. v. Packard Motor Co., 274 U.S. 417 (1927) ; Colum-
bia Motor Car Co. v. C. A. Duerr & Co., 184 F. 893 (2d Cir. 1911) ; Hartford-
Empire Co. V. Obear-Nester Glass Co., 39 F.2d 769, 775, 4 USPQ 483, 488-489
■(8th Cir. 1930) ; Ericsou et al. v. Jorgensen et al., 180 F.2d 180, 181, 183, 84 USPQ
176, 178-179 (D.C. Cir. 1950) ; Cline Electric Mfg. Co. v. Kohler, 27 F.2d 638,
641-42 (7th Cir. 1928).

12. Validity

12.1 1 35 uses 28^

12.l!l!l, Aero Spark^Plug Co. v. B. G. Corporation, 130 F.2d 290, 294, 54 USPQ
348, 351-352 (2d Cir. 1942).

12.1.1.2, Radio Corporation of America v. Radio Engineering Laboratories, Inc.,
293 U.S. 1, 21 USPQ 353 (1934) ; Cleveland Punch & Shear Works Co. v. E. W.
Bliss Co., 145 F.2d 991, &4 USPQ 77 (6th Cir. 1&44), noting: Cuno Engineering
Corp. V. Automatic Devices Corp., 314 U.S. 84, 51 USPQ 272 (1941) .

12.1.1.3, Frank Adam Electric Co. v. Colt's Patent Fire Arms Mfg. Co., 148 F.2d
497, 65 USPQ 85 (8th Cir. 1945), citing: Muncie Gear Works, Inc. v. Outboard
Marine & Mfg. Co., 315 U.S. 759, 768, 53 USPQ 1, 5 (1942) .

12.1.1.4, American Infra-Red Radiant Co. v. Lambert Industries, 360 F.2d 977,
149 USPQ 722 (8th Cir. 1966) ; Butler Manufacturing Company v. Enterprise
Cleaning Company, 81 F.2d 711, 28 USPQ 196 (8th Cir. 1936) : Buchanan et al. v.
The Wyeth Hardware & Manufacturing Company, 47 F.2d 704, 8 USPQ 389 (8th
Cir. 1931) ; John Deere Co. of Kansas City v. Graham, 333 F.2d 529, 142 USPQ
459 (8th Cir. 1964) ; rev. on other grounds at 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459; Piel Mfg.
Co., Inc. V. George A. Rolfes Co., 363 F.2d 57, 150 USPQ 330 (Sth Cir. 1966).

Cir. 1966) ; Butler Manufacturing Company v. Enterprise Cleaning Company, 81

12.1.1.5, Corning Glass Works v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corp., 253 F. Supp, 461,
149 USPQ 99 (D. Del. 1966) ; Huston v. Buckeye Bait Corp., 237 F.2d 920, 112
USPQ 4 (6th Cir. 1956),

12.1.1.6, Graham Pai>er Company v. International Paper Company, 46 F.2d 881,
8 USPQ 463 (8th Cir. 1931) ; Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Antitrust and
Monopoly of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Eighty-
Seventh Congress, Pursuant to S. Res. 52 on S. 1552, October-November, 1961 ;
Hearings Before the Antitrust Subcommittee of the Judiciary, House of Repre-
sentatives, Eighty-Seventh Congress, on H.R. 6245, May 1962 ; "1961-1962 Man-
agement Survey of the U.S. Patent Office," Study Prepared for the Subcommittee
on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Committee on the Judiciary,
United States Senate, Eighty- Seventh Congress, Pursuant to S. Res. 267; "To
Promote the Progress of * * * Useful Arts in an Age of Exploding Technology",
Report of the President's Commission on the Patent System, 1966 ; Special Com-



5907

mittee to Study the Patent System, Final Report, July 14, 1966, American I'atent
Law Association.

12.1.1.7, Atlas Copco Aktieoblag v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 1.55 USPQ 651 (D. N..T.,
1967) ; Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 18, 148 USPQ 4.59, 467 (1966) ;
A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Co., 340 U.S. 147, 156, 87 USPQ 303, 307-308
(1950) ; Packwood v. Briggs & Stratton Corp., 195 F.2d 971, 974, 93 USPQ 274,
276 (3rd Cir. 1952).

12.2.3.1, 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (1952) ; Pennock v. Dialogue, 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 1
(1829) : Munice Gear Works, Inc. v. Outboard Marine & Mfg. Co.. 315 U.S. 759,
53 USPQ 1 (1942) ; Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Shimadzu, 307 U.S. 5, 41
USPQ 155 (1939).

12.2.3.2, Metallizing Eng'r Co. v. Kenyon Bearing Auto Parts Co., 153 F.2d 516,
520, 68 USPQ 54, 58 (2d Cir. 1946) ; Andrews v. Hovey, 123 U.S. 267 (1887) ; Cata-
phote Corp. v. De Soto Chemical Coatings, Inc., 356 F.2d 24, 148 USPQ 527 (9th
€ir. 1966).

12.2.3.3, Hall v. Macneale, 107 U.S. 90, 97 (1882) ; Root v. Third Ave. R.R.,
146 U.S. 210 (1892) ; Egbert v. Lippman, 104 U.S. (14 Otto.) 333, 336 (1881) ;
Watson V. Allen, 254 F.2d 342, 345, 117 USPQ 68, 69-70 (D.C. Cir. 1958).

12.2.3.4, Elizabeth v. Pavement Co., 97 U.S. 126 (1877) .

12.2.3.5, Smith & Griggs Mfg. Co. v. Sprague, 123 U.S. 249 (1887) ; Monolith
Portland Midwest Co. v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., 267 F. Supp. 726,
152 USPQ 380 (S.D. Cal. 1966), modified, 407 F.2d 288, 160 USPQ 577 (9th Cir.
1969) ; Bourne v. Jones, 114 F. Supp. 413, 98 USPQ 206 (S.D. Fla. 1951), aff'd,
207 F.2d 173, 98 USPQ 205 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, 346 U.S. 897, 99 USPQ 490
(1953).

12.2.3.6, Magnetics, Inc. v. Arnold Eng'r Co., 438 F.2d 72, 168 USPQ 392, 394
(7th Cir. 1971) ; Monolith Portland Midwest Co. v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem.
Corp,. 267 F. Supp. 726, 785, 152 USPQ 380, 427^28 (S.D. Cal. 1966), aff'd, 407
F.2d 288, 160 USPQ 577 (9th Cir. 1969) .

12.2.3.7, Nicholson v. Carl W. MuUis Eng'r & Mfg. Co., 315 F.2d 532, 137 USPQ 13
(4th Cir. 1963).

12.2.3.8, Atlas v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 311 F.2d 156, 136 USPQ 4 (1st Cir.
1962) , cert, denied, 373 U.S. 904, 137 USPQ 912 ( 1963) .

12.2.3.9, Smith & Griggs Mfg. Co. v. Sprague, 123 U.S. 249, 267 (1887) ; Buser v.
Novelty Tufting Machine Co.. 151 F. 478 (6th Cir. 1907) ; Thomson-Houston Elec-
tric Co. V. Lorain Steel Co., 117 F. 249 (2d Cir. 1902) ; W-R Co. v. Sova, 106 F.2d
478, 481, 43 USPQ 35, 37-38 (6th Cir. 1939).

12.2.3.10, Koehring Co. v. National Automatic Tool Co., 362 F.2d 100, 149 USPQ
887 (7th Cir. 1966).

12.2.3.11, Smith & Griggs Mfg. Co. v. Sprague, 123 U.S. 249 (1887) ; Coffin v.
Ogden, 85 U.S. (18 Wall) 120 (1873) ; National Biscuit Co. v. Crown Baking Co.,
105 F.2d 422, 427, 42 USPQ 214, 218-219, (1st Cir. 1939) .

12.2.3.12, Egbert v. Lippmann 104 U.S. (14 Otto.) 333 (1881) ; Atlas v. Eastern
Air Lines, Inc.. 311 F. 2d 1.56. 159, 136 USPQ 4, 6 (Cir. 1962), cert, denied,
373 U.S. 904, 137 USPQ 912 (1963).

12.2.3..13, Atlas v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 311 F. 2d 156, 136 USPQ 4 (1st
Cir. 1962), cert, denied, 373 U.S. 904, 137 USPQ 912 (1963) : Koehring Co. v.
National Automatic Tool Co., 362 F. 2d 100, 149 USPQ 887 (7th Cir. 1966).

12.2.3.14. Midland Flour Co. v. Bobbitt. 70 F. 2d. 416, 21 USPQ 60. (8th Cir.
1934) ; Franz Manufacturing Co. v. Phenix Mfg. Co., 307 F. Supp. 822, 824, 164
T'SPQ 381, 382-383 (F.D. Wis. 1970) ; Tri-Wall Containers, Inc. 1. United States,
408 F. 2d 748, 750, 161 USPQ 116, 118 (Ct. CI.), cert, denied, 396 U.S. 828,
163 USPQ 704 (1969).

12.2.4.1. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

12.2.4.2, Amphenol Corp. v. General Time Corp., 397 F. 2d 431, 4.33, 158 USPQ
113. 114 (7th Cir. 1968) ; Magee v. Coca-Cola Co. 232 F. 2d 596, 109 USPQ 124
(7th Cir. 1956).

12.2.4.3. Sterns-Roger Mfg. Co. v. Ruth. 170 F. Supp. 906. 124 USPQ 3 (D. Colo.
19.59), Philco Corp. v. Admiral Corp., 199 F. Supp. 797, 131 USPQ 413 (D. Del.
1961).

12.2.4.4, Chicopee Mfg. Corp. v. Columbus Fiber Mills Co., 165 F. Supp. 307,
118 USPQ 53 (M.D. Ga. 1958).

12.2.4..5. Maver v. A. & H. G. Muti^chler. 248 F. 911, 915 (2nd Cir.), (cert,
denied. 248 U.S. 563 (1918) : Monroe v. Bresee. 239 F. 727 (7th Cir. 1917).

12.2.4.6, Piet v. United States, 176 F. Supp. 576, 123 USPQ 21 (S.D. Cal.
1959). modified, 283 F. 2d 693. 127 USPQ 410 (9th Cir. 1960) ; In re Hobbs,
165 USPQ 99, 132 (A.E.C. Pat. Comp. Bd., 1970) ; 42 U.S.C. §2185 (1965).



5008

12 2 4.7, A. H. Emery Co. v. Marcan Products Corp., 268 F. Supp. 289, 153
USPQ 337 (S.D. N.Y. 1967) ; Cloud v. Standard Packaging Corp., 376 F. 2d
384, 153 USPQ 317 (7th Cir. 1967).

12.2.5.1, 35 U.S.C. §§ 111 and 115.

12.2.5.2, Kennedy v.Hazeiton, 128 U.S. 667 (ISSS). „, ^ „ ^o -.-.o qa

12.2.5.3, Interstate Bakeries v. General Baking Co., 84 F. Supp. 92, 113, 80
USPQ 566, 583-584 (D. Kan. 1948).

l->->5 4 Corona Cord Tire Co. v. Dovan Chemical Corp., 2(0 U.S. 3o8 {W-b) ;
Pennington v. National Supply Co., 95 F. 2d 291, 37 USPQ 18 (5th Cir. 1938) ;
Monroe Auto Equipment Co. v. Heckethorn Mfg. & Supply Co., 332 F. 2d 406,
141 USPQ 549 (6th Cir.), cert, denied, 379 U.S. 888; 143 USPQ 465 (1964).

12.2.6.2, i.C.E. Corp." v. Armco Steel Corp., 250 F. Supp. 738, 148 USPQ
537 (S.D.' N.Y. 1966). _^ ^ ^ ^^ , .^,

12 2 6.3, Dix-Seal Corp. v. New Haven Trap Rock Co., 236 F. Supp 914, 144
USPQ 57 (D. Conn., 1964) ; Cottier v. Stimson, 20 F. 906 (C.C. D. Ore. 1884).

12.2.6.4, Hamilton Laboratories, Inc. v. Massengill, 111 F. 2d 584, 45 USPQ 594
(6th Cir. 1940) ; Indiana General Corp. v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 249 F. Supp.
809; 148 USPQ 312 (S.D. Cal. 1966), rev'd on other grounds, 408 F. 2d 294,
160 USPQ 6 (9th Cir. 1968) ; Brian Jackson Associates, Inc. v. San INIanuel
Copper Corp., 259 F. Supp., 793. 151 USPQ 5 (D. Ariz., 1966), aff'd per curiam.
384 F. 2d 487 ; 155 USPQ 417 (9th Cir. 1967).

12.2.6.5, Hazeltine Research, Inc. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 239 F. Supp. ol,
144 USPQ 381 (N.D. Ill, 1965), rehearing denied, 401 U.S. 1015 (1971) ; Dis-
Seal Corp. v. New Haven Trap Rock Co., 236 F. Supp. 914 144 USPQ 594 (D.
Conn. 1964) ; Klein v. United States, 375 F. 2d 825 (Ct. CI. 1907).

12.2.6.6, 35 U.S.C. § 103.

1-'>3 2.1, Woodhridge v. United States, 263 U.S. 50, 57 (1923); Levmson v.
Nordskog Co., Inc., 301 F. Supp. 589, 163 USPQ 52 (CD. Cal. 1909).

12.3.2.2, In re Appeal of Mower, 15 App. D.C. 144, 152 (1899) (Chief Justice
Alvey )

12.3.3.1, Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322, U.S. 238, 246, 61
USPQ 241, 245 (1944) ; General Excavator Co. v. Keystone Driller Co., 02 F.
2d 4S 50, 16 USPQ 269, 270-271 (6th Cir. 1932) ; Corning Glass Works v. An-
chor-Hocking Glass Corp., 253 F. Supp. 461, 470, 149 USPQ, 106-107 (D. Del.
1960). moditied on other grounds. 374 F. 2d 473, 153 USPQ 1 (3rd Cir.), cert, de-
nied, 389 U.S. 826, 155 USPQ 767 (1967).

12.3.3.2, SCM Corporation v. Radio Corporation of America, 318 F. Supp, 433.
449, 167 USPQ 196, 207-208 (S.D. N.Y. 1970), citing U.S. Supreme Court author-
ities: cf. Earle R. Hanson & Associates v. Farmers Coop Creamery Co.. 4ii3
F. 2d 65, 70 (8th Cir. 1968) : Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive
Maintenance Mach. Co. 324 U.S. 800. 814-810, 65 USPQ 133, 137-138 (1945).



Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. Senate. Committee on theThe Industrial reorganization act. Hearings, Ninety-third Congress, first session [-Ninety-fourth Congress, first session], on S. 1167 (Volume pt. 7) → online text (page 139 of 140)