Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb (Robins)

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Patent filed november 17, 1942

Lyon claims bausch and lomb infringed. Bausch and Lomb do not deny infringment, they question whether Lyon's patent was already known. They say "suitable coatings" is too vague a description. and other vagueness issues.

These do not concern the court as much as novelty.

Lyon Patent: Throughout the specifications the "coating" to be vaporized is described only as a "suitable coating * * such as metallic fluoride, metallic sulphide, oxide or the like" (page 1, col. 2, lines 26-28), or "mixtures" of these (page 2, col. 1, lines 26-28). The first five claims speak of "a stable, water insoluble, evaporated inorganic salt," and of the last two claims in suit number eight is for a "metallic fluoride" and number nine for "magnesium fluoride."

Cartwright and Turner took out 3 patents near to Lyon's. They involve coating an optical surface with a film of inorganic salt. 1.No. 2,207,656 depositing metallicflourides upon a lens by vaporizing it in a vacuum. 2. No. 2,281,474 supeimposing 2 coatings which presupposes the vaporization of inorganic substances. 3. No. 2,281,475 process (and for its product) of coating a lens with similar substances by vaporizing them in a vacuum and thereafter "baking"

Lyons first step of cleaning the lense is now just a generally accepted method, but lyons second step is now the way to secure the optimum bond of the coating to the glass.

Cartwright had practiced hardening the glass in a vacuum by heating it, but he had abandoned the invention, and due to his testomony was still unsure what the best way to do it was. It was considered an abandoned experiment and he was not considered the prior inventor.

question whether invention could be work of any skilled mechanic, they conlcude no. Poeple had been searching for a better way to do this and never found it before Lyon.

This would only be eligible after a law which went into effect january 1, 1953. Therfore, the only damages that are allowed to be collected are those after 1953

Question about whether he had accepted payment by bundgeting money from the navy to experimental endeavors, however this was not proved and the court therefore will not rule on this point.