Harris-intertype Corporation, Appellant, v. Photon, Inc., Appellee, 349 F.2d 856 (1st Cir. 1965)
Annotate this CaseDecided August 30, 1965
Lawrence B. Biebel, Dayton, Ohio, with whom Dailey L. Bugg, Joseph G. Nauman, Marechal, Biebel, French & Bugg, Dayton, Ohio and Fish, Richardson & Neave, Boston, Mass., were on brief, for appellant.
Melvin R. Jenney, Boston, Mass., with whom Jeremiah Lynch and Kenway, Jenney & Hildreth, Boston, Mass., were on brief, for appellee.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, BREITENSTEIN,* Circuit Judge, and GIGNOUX, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant makes only one substantial attack upon the judgment of the District Court holding Tansel patents No. 2,725,803 and No. 2,896,523 invalid for lack of invention, Photon, Inc. v. Harris-Intertype Corporation, 235 F. Supp. 921 (1964). It is that the Court failed to recognize that the Tansel patents disclosed the photocell-slit control of the flash, which appellant asserts is the key to a commercially successful photocomposing machine. We do not so read the District Court's opinion. In any event, we ourselves have carefully studied the record and are satisfied that the Tansel patents, construed to include the photocell-slit control, call for nothing more than a combination of elements shown by the prior art cited by the District Court to be old and producing no unexpected result. Accordingly, we agree with the conclusion of the District Court that both patents are invalid for lack of invention. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 71 S. Ct. 127, 95 L. Ed. 162 (1950); United Shoe Mach. Corp. v. Industrial Shoe Mach. Corp., 335 F.2d 577, 580 (1st Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 990, 85 S. Ct. 702, 13 L. Ed. 2d 610 (1965); Associated Folding Box Co. v. Levkoff, 194 F.2d 252 (1st Cir. 1952); McCord Corp. v. Beacon Auto Radiator Co., 193 F.2d 985 (1st Cir. 1952).
Judgment will be entered affirming the judgments of the District Court.
By designation
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
