The plaintiff's argument to the effect that claims 5 and 6 (originally 32 and 33) were intended by the applicant to continue the broad concept embodied in claim 8 for internal vibration generally, and that the element "progressively moving the said vibrating body in the material" was inserted for the sole purpose of distinguishing the claim from Atterbury (which the patentee apparently assumed...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.