Florida Brace Corporation and Arthur R. Moore v. William L. Bartels and Prosthetic & Orthopedic Supply Co.

Good Law
332 F.2d 337·141 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 764·1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5287
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 23, 196419055California1,910 words

Opinion

Opinion

Barnes, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court denying recovery to appellants for the alleged infringement by appellees of Moore Patent No. 2,801,-630, and awarding attorneys’ fees of $10,000 to appellees. The patent was upon a cervical collar, which permitted adjustments in height and to a lesser extent, in conformation to the body measurements of a wearer of the well known “Thomas Collar.”

Jurisdiction below rested upon 28 U.S.C. § 1338 , and here rests upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .

The trial court in its opinion found that the Scott collar (itself an improvement on the Thomas Collar), existing in the prior art, “disclosed practically everything shown in the patent in suit.” In Finding VIII the trial court found that they differed in that Moore “had adjustable clamps in addition to rivets” between the common two overlapped sheets of material; and in Finding IX that “the use of adjustable clamps in neck braces was old and Moore’s use of clamps was obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.”

We affirm the findings of noninvention, because of the proved prior art. We need not recite this art, nor need we reach the issue of whether Scott was a coinventor with Moore…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.