Page:United States Reports, Volume 257.djvu/109

28 Rh  candy was supported by them, was at most an improved equivalent. P. 36. A generic patent is entitled to broad equivalents. P. 36.

263 Fed. 571, reversed.

 to review a judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals in a suit brought by the present petitioner to enjoin an infringement of his patent. The District Court granted the injunction, 253 Fed. 68; but it was reversed by the court below, 263 Fed. 571.

Mr. George P. Dike, with whom Mr. Frederic D. McKenney was on the briefs, for petitioner.

Mr. Joseph L. Atkins, for respondent, submitted. Mr. W. A. Robbins was also on the briefs.

delivered the opinion of the court.

 This is a certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit bringing here for review a decree of that court, reversing one of the District Court of Oregon, granting an injunction against infringement of a patent for a candy pulling machine. The patent, No. 831,501, was issued to Hildreth as assignee by mesne assignments of Dickinson. Mastoras, the defendant in the District Court, made and used a candy pulling machine, under a later patent of Langer. The Circuit Court of Appeals held the claim of the Dickinson patent sued on to be so limited as not to cover the Langer device. 253 Fed. 68; 263 Fed. 571.

The chief question in this case is infringement, and that turns on the question whether Dickinson's invention is held to be a primary or generic invention, or a narrow one limited solely to the device shown.

Not all candy is pulled, but much of it is. The process is first the mixture of the ingredients, then the boiling, 