Ward
Ward v. Rogers Bros.
Opinion
lead Opinion
Hunt, J.
Appeal from a decree of the District Court for the Southern District of California, Southern Division, dismissing the complaint in an action for infringement based upon letters patent 991043, granted to Joseph' E. Ward, May 2, 1911, for a process of making roadways. The defendant set- up noninfringement and that the patent was void by anticipation.
[1] Plaintiff, in his specification, stated that the main object of his invention was “to reduce to a minimum the amount of oil required in making the roadway.” In describing his process he said:
The claims of the patent are as follows:
It will be observed that the first claim calls for: Atomizing oil in contact with air in,such manner that the oil tends to remain suspended' in the air for an appreciable time; pressing the atomized oil and air into contact with a porous road surface; causing the oil to permeate the porous road surface while still in the atomized condition; causing the atomized oil to be discharged on the material of the road surface while "such material is agitated and partly suspended.
In the second1 claim the call is for: Atomizing oil in contact with air; maintaining the oil in atomized condition and suspended an…