MAITLAND v. GIBSON

MAITLAND v. GIBSON. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. October 22, 1894.) No. 17. 1. Patents—Combination—Electric Light Fixtures. In view of the prior state of the art, there is no invention in a combination comprising an electric light fixture supported from the piping of a house, and electrically insulated therefrom by an insulating joint. 63 Fed. 120, affirmed. 2. Same. The Stieringer patent, No. 259,233, for an “electrical fixture,” held to be without patentable combination, as respects claims 1, 7, 8, and 9. 63 Fed. 126, affirmed. 3. Same—Mechanical Union of Parts. The Stieringer patent, No. 294,697, for a combined gas and electric light fixture, held void as to claims 1, 2, 8, and 9, as showing a mere mechanical union of parts, without patentable combination. 63 Fed. 126, affirmed. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This was a bill in equity by George Maitland against Alfred C. Gibson for infringement of certain patents for electric light fixtures. On final hearing the bill was dismissed, with costs. (53 Fed. 126. Complainant appeals. Bichard ZEST. Dyer, for appellant. Hector T. Fenton, for appellee. Before ACHESON, Circuit Judge, and BUTLER and WALES, District Judges. [MAJORITY — ACHESON, Circuit Judge.] ACHESON, Circuit Judge. After a thorough examination of this record, we fail to discover any ground for disturbing the decree dismissing the bill of complaint. We all concur in the conclusions of the circuit court, and in the reasons therefor expressed in its opinion. That opinion is so full and satisfactory that any further discussion of the case is needless. We therefore adopt the opinion of the court below as our own, and upon it we affirm the decree. Decree affirmed.