Summary

Portrait of Harlan F. Stone Harlan F. Stone Altoona Publix Theatres v. American Tri-Ergon Corporation…

As none of the flywheel claims as drawn define an invention, none can be aided by reading into it parts of the specifications, or of other claims, which the patentees failed to include in it.
The court below, attributing the rapid development of the sound motion picture industry to the invention in the patent in suit, thought, as respondent earnestly argues here, that its utility and commercial success must be accepted as convincing evidence of invention.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Harlan F. Stone Harlan F. Stone Altoona Publix Theatres v. American Tri-Ergon Corporation…

Patents for devices for use both in the motion picture art and in the art of sound reproduction, notably the Holst, the Bell & Tainter, the Dragoumis patents, and the Edison application, already noted, plainly foreshadowed the use made of the flywheel in the present patent, if they did not anticipate it. The patentees brought together old elements, in a mechanism involving no new principle, to produce an old result, greater uniformity of motion.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature