v1663-825

No. 6050

IN THE

United States Circuit Court of Appeals

For the Ninth Circuit r^ * i ^ '-

F I L t. D

In Equity JUii ^ .

• F.VJL F. G*-aeN,

CLRK

. ^

Thomas Day Company (a corporation),

Appellant,

vs.

DoBLE Laboratories (a corporation),

Appellee,

MEMORANDUM OF APPELLANT

IN ANSWER TO APPELLEE'S BRIEF.

The gist of appellee's argument is that the Doble

patents are not anticipated. The writers thereof seem

to think that our defense is anticipation, pure and

simple. This is a misconception. We are not rely-

ing on anticipation, but on want of invention in view

of the prior art. Our position is that the faculty of

invention was not displayed in producing the Doble

combinations, but only mechanical skill such as was

possessed by any person skilled in the art.

There is a vast difference between anticipation and

want of invention. Anticipation obtains only where

some one prior patent, publication, or use, shows all

---

archive.org Volume Name: govuscourtsca9briefs1663

Volume: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs1663

Document Link: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs1663#page/n824/mode/1up

Top Keywords (auto-generated):

patent, invention, elements, anticipation, faculty, element, doble, art, argument, anticipated, term, strict, skilled, skill, sense

Top Key Phrases (auto-generated):

strict sense, patent publication, mechanical skill, wilkinson langdon, vast difference, sup plementary, submitted john, skill alone, singie structure, respectfully submitted, pub lication, patent pub, patented combination., mventiov although, miller geo.,

Document Status: UGLY