Appellants, hereafter Gratiot, appeal from a judgment holding valid a patent owned by the Farr Company, hereafter Farr, and that it was infringed by a device of Gratiot and awarding damages to Farr and enjoining Gratiot from further use of his device. Gratiot contends that the court erred in holding that Farr’s patent had not been anticipated and hence,that it is valid.

The patent awarded is for a filter to free the air from dust. Farr admits that every element in his device has had a precedent use but claims novelty in their combination. In this situation, our approach to the problem of patentable novelty is stated by the Supreme Court to be:

The court’s findings, 3 and 4, prepared for the court by Farr, describe the devices as follows:

Gratiot contended that, inter alia, Farr’s device was anticipated by the patent granted by France to one Niestle. On this the court found:

We do not agree with this finding. The French patent when constructed has the air pass through the same channels as the Farr device. Its claims are:

The mere fact that the “elements’ i. e., the metal gauze screens having larger slot openings than those of the gauze, are placed at right angles to the flow of air is irrelevant, since the angled slot passages surrounded by the screened gauze give exactly the mechanism to collect the dust as the Farr device. This is also shown in figure 5 of the Niestle patent and exhibit KY introduced in evidence.

The fact that in using these identical air passages of the mechanism, the French patent contemplates using oil so heavy that it closes the gauze apertures does not create patentable novelty in having a gauze of larger apertures and using an oil so thin that air may pass through the gauze holes until the deposited dust closes them. Here are none of the “unusual or surprising consequences” of the Great A. & P. Tea Co. case, supra, 340 U.S. at page 152 , 71 S.Ct. at page 130 :

The judgment is reversed and judgment ordered entered for the appellant.