The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 272: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States and the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, June-August, 1921. Page: 25
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
EDWARDS MIFG. CO. V. NATIONAL FIREWORKS DIST. CO. 20
(272 F )
but upon a full consideration of the evidence in this case, this court
now adopts, without repeating, what was said by it in the opinion in that
case in reference to the validity of claim 6 of the Wertz patent.
 It appears from the file wrapper of the Wertz patent that the
Patent Office, in rejecting some of the original claims, required a re-
vision as to terms as follows:
"In the nomenclature of the art, the part which strikes the cap, cartridge,
or firing pin is known as the hammer; that winch is manipulated by the
finger. to discharge the gun or pistol, as the trigger; the spring which actu-
ates the hammer as the mainspring; and the part (i, on which the cap of ful-
minate is exploded, as the anvil."
The applicant, in pursuance of this suggestion, amended claim 6 in
conformity therewith, designating the part to which the feed spring
was attached as the hammer, instead of the trigger. Appellant's con-
struction has the separate trigger and hammer, and, in order to make
this a vital distinction, it now contends that this amendment of the
Wertz claim constituted an estoppel limitation, both in intent and effect,
and that irrespective of intent or effect of this amendment, in view of
the prior art, the claim cannot be lawfully extended to embrace de-
fendant's device, which discloses a different principle of construction,
mode of operation, and specific result.
In the form shown by Wertz the trigger and hammer are one piece,
pivotally operating upon a fulcrum The feed spring was inserted in
a recess in the part above the fulcrum, which part of the single piece
hammer and trigger the Patent Office insisted should be designated
as the hammer, notwithstanding it was integral with the part below
the fulcrum, which the Patent Office required to be designated as the
trigger. To meet this requirement, the applicant substituted the words
"spring on the hammer" for the words "spring on the trigger." It is
apparent, therefore, that this amendment of claim 6 did not involve any
surrender whatever of the claim as first stated, but rather a mere
change in the terms used to designate parts of the construction to con-
form to the nomenclature of the art, and therefore cannot be construed
as an estoppel limitation either in intent or effect. National Tube Co.
v. Mark, 216 Fed. 507, 522. 133 C C. A. 13; Frey v. Marvel Co., 236
Fed 916, 921, 922, 150 C. C. A 178.
 While undoubtedly the plaintiff's invention is in a crowded art,
and for that reason claim 6 cannot lhe given a broad range of equiva-
lents, yet certainly there is no reason for giving it such a narrow con-
struction as to exclude from its protection equivalents functioning in
exactly the same manner, producing the same result, and differing only
in form and arrangement
It appears from the evidence of plaintiff's expert that the feature
which differentiates the improvement covered by claim 6 of the Wertz
patent from the prior art centers about the tape-holding and tape-feed-
ing springs, which co-operate to control the tape and effect a uniform,
regular feeding movement, and which also co-operate to prevent back-
fire. It is unnecessary to review the prior patent art further than to
say that these two elements co-operating to produce these results are
not found therein.
Here’s what’s next.
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 272: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States and the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, June-August, 1921., legislative document, 1921; Saint Paul, Minnesota. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38843/m1/47/: accessed March 28, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.