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: 26
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
272 FEDERAL REPORTER
 These elements constitute the main feature of the invention. It
is not merely a new arrangement of old parts, but introduces at least
one new element, the feeding spring, into toy pistol construction, and
to that extent, at least, this claim should not be narrowly construed
 If, however, as contended by counsel 'for appellant, defendant's
device discloses a different plan of construction, a different mode of
operation, and a different specific result, then it is not the equivalent of
plaintiff's patent, and does not constitute infringement.
 In the defendant's construction a rigid pawl, instead of a flat
spring, as in W ,ertz, is used for feeding the tape on the anvil. One end
of this pawl engages the trigger extension, and the other end comes
in loose contact with the tape-holding spring in the inside upper por-
tion of the pistol casing. This pawl is held in place by engagement
with one end of a spring coiled on the casing fulcrum of the trigger
member. By reason of this spring attachment this pawl, in perform-
ing its function of feeding the tape on the anvil, presses yieldingly
against the ammunition tape, as does the flat tape feeding spring in the
Wertz patent. It also co-operates with the guide spring to prevent
backfire. The fact that in defendant's construction part of the feed-
ing element is a rigid pawl engaging with a spring that permits it to
press yieldingly against the tape does not distinguish it from this
element of the Wertz patent, in which a yielding spring constitutes the
entire element. ''he principle is the same: it is actuated by the same
finger pressure upon the trigger, functions in the same manner, and pro-
duces the same result.
Nor is it important that this coil spring and pawl which constitute
the feeding element in the defendant's construction, and which corre-
,,pond to the flat spring which constitutes the feeding element in the
\Wertz patent, engages with the trigger, instead of the hammer. In
order to produce the desired result, this feeding element in either
construction must engage with one or the other of the moving parts,
which in turn communicates motion to it In the Wertz patent the
only moving part is the one-piece trigger and hammer rotating on a pivot
or fulcrum, the ends mo%,ing im opposite directions when the force of
the operator's finger is applied to the trigger end, and reversing this
movement when that force is removed and the mainspring permitted
In Clark and in defendant's construction the ti igger and hammer are
separate parts, but, as suggested by the Patent Office, "whether formed
together or separately, the purpose and function of the hammer and
trigger remain the same " It is therefore obviously a mere matter of
choice of arrangement as to which of these two moving parts shall be se-
lected to communicate motion to the tape-feeding device It would he
idle to say that the fundamental function of this tape-feeding device is
changed 9r altered in any respect by reason of the fact that in one
arrangement it is attached to the hammer and in the other it is at-
tached to the trigger. In the last analysis the real question is whether
one device is the equivalent of the other.
[71 The claim of the Clark patent reads literally upon claim 6 of
the Wertz patent, except that the Clark claim in addition thereto also
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/m1/48/: accessed March 25, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.