Rousso

Rousso v. City Towel Supply Co.

Good Law
242 F. 655·1916 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 946
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaSeptember 25, 1916No. C-33California1,090 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Cushman, J.

[1] Complainant has waived his claim of infringement, save as to claims 1 to 6, inclusive, of his patent, No. 1,157,046, for a towel cabinet. Jt is considered only necessary to quote two of these -claims, the first and. sixth, being the broadest and narrowest of the claims alleged to be infringed:

Assuming that Cassell’s English patent, No. 12,176, for an improvement in boxes for storing and delivering towels, is part of the prior art, although complainant contends that in the absence of evidence as to its utility it is not to be so considered, the unappropriated field in the art was doubtless greatly narrowed thereby. The Cassell patent had' a towel support and a member extending downwardly therefrom, con *656 stituting a guide for a towel while in use; but a retaining member extending upwardly from the towel support and then downwardly, as described in the claims and specifications of the patent in suit, were new in the towel cabinet art. The important effect of this change in the shape of the retaining and guide member will be pointed out later.

The only other, and the chief, question of importance in the case is the Question of .whether the patent in. suit is not invalid by…

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.