Exhibit Supply Co. v. Ace Patents Corp., 315 U.S. 126 (1942)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 315 U.S. 110, click here.
Exhibit Supply Co. v. Ace Patents Corporation
No. 154
Argued January 15, 16, 1942
Decided February 2, 1942 *
315 U.S. 126
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
1. In a case involving a patent, concerning which there was no conflict of decisions by Circuit Courts of Appeals, certiorari was granted because of the nature of the questions involved and because it was shown that the industry affected by a decision sustaining the patentee’s contentions was located in a single circuit, so that litigation resulting in such conflicts would not be likely to occur. P. 128.
2. Claim 4, as amended, of the Nelson patent, No. 2,109,678, relates to the structure of a resilient switch or circuit closer, so disposed on the board of a game table as to serve as a target which, when struck by a freely rolling ball, will momentarily close an electrical circuit. It claims as elements of the invention a conductor standard anchored to the table, a coil spring surrounding the standard, means carrying the spring pendantly from the upper portion of the standard, with the coils of the spring spaced from the standard,
and conductor means in said circuit and embedded in the table at a point spaced from the standard and engageable by a portion of the spring when it is flexed to close the aforementioned Circuit.
Held:
(1) The word "embedded" as used in the claim embraces any conductor means solidly set or firmly fixed in the table, whether or not it protrudes above or below the surface. P. 135.
(2) By amendment of the claim so as to describe the conductor mean as "embedded in the table," instead of "carried by the table," as it stood before amendment, devices in which the conductor means is a nail or pin driven into he table were not excluded. P. 135.
(3) By such amendment, however, made to meet objections of the Patent Office based on the prior art, the patentee restricted the claim to those combinations in which the conductor means, though carried on the table, is also embedded in it, recognized and emphasized the difference between the two phrases, and proclaimed his abandonment of all that is embraced in that difference. P. 136.
(4) The amendment operates as a disclaimer of that difference, and must be strictly construed against him. P. 137.
(5) What the patentee, by a strict construction of his claim, has lost by disclaimer cannot be regained by recourse to the doctrine of equivalents. P. 137.
119 F.2d 349, modified.
Certiorari, 314 U.S. 702, in three cases, to review the affirmance of decrees holding a patent claim valid and infringed and enjoining the alleged infringements.