22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T497,After studying the briefs submitted, I find nothing that alters my conclusions expressed at the close of the trial. I feel that the claims involved in the patents in suit have been fully anticipated by the electric fan patents introduced, especially by Morris, Patent No. 1,334,781; Rolle, Patent No. 687-854, and Hedges, Patent No. 572,008. I am further of the opinion that the patents in suit were fully anticipated by Cobb, Patent No. 1,639,257. The plaintiff’s own testimony demonstrates that he was following Cobb. I am still of the opinion that the claims involved are nothing more or less than an aggregation. According to plaintiffs’ theory the placing of a mechanism on top of a platform would enable one to claim a combination of elements. Each element performs the same function it always performed. They performed no joint functions. Toledo Pressed Steel Co. v. Standard Parts, Inc., 307 U.S. 350 , 59 S.Ct. 897 , 83 L.Ed. 1334 . I hold that the claims involved in each patent have been fully anticipated and further that the purported combination is a mere aggregation. Defendant is directed to serve and submit proposed findings of fact within ten days.24:T4b2,

After studying the briefs submitted, I find nothing that alters my conclusions expressed at the close of the trial.

I feel that the claims involved in the patents in suit have been fully anticipated by the electric fan patents introduced, especially by Morris, Patent No. 1,334,781; Rolle, Patent No. 687-854, and Hedges, Patent No. 572,008. I am further of the opinion that the patents in suit were fully anticipated by Cobb, Patent No. 1,639,257. The plaintiff’s own testimony demonstrates that he was following Cobb.

I am still of the opinion that the claims involved are nothing more or less than an aggregation. According to plaintiffs’ theory the placing of a mechanism on top of a platform would enable one to claim a combination of elements. Each element performs the same function it always performed. They performed no joint functions. Toledo Pressed Steel Co. v. Standard Parts, Inc., 307 U.S. 350 , 59 S.Ct. 897 , 83 L.Ed. 1334 .

I hold that the claims involved in each patent have been fully anticipated and further that the purported combination is a mere aggregation.

Defendant is directed to serve and submit proposed findings of fact within ten days.