Jules D. Gratiot and Air-Maze Corporation v. Farr Company, a Corporation

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…