Lundy Elec. & Sys., Inc. v. Optical Recognition Sys., Inc., Lundy Elec. & Sys., Inc. v. Optical Recognition Sys., Inc., 493 F.2d 1222 (4th Cir. 1974). · Go Syfert
Search
Lundy Elec. & Sys., Inc. v. Optical Recognition Sys., Inc., Lundy Elec. & Sys., Inc. v. Optical Recognition Sys., Inc., 493 F.2d 1222 (4th Cir. 1974). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ropat Corp. v. West Bend Co. (ilnd, 1974-07-31)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Ropat Corp. v. West Bend Co.
N.D. Ill. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lundy Electronics & Systems, Inc. v. Optical Recognition Systems, Inc., 493 F.2d 1222 (4th Cir. 1974). .
discussed Cited "see" Ropat Corporation v. West Bend Company
N.D. Ill. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lundy Electronics & Systems, Inc. v. Optical Recognition Systems, Inc., 493 F.2d 1222 (4th Cir. 1974). [5] It may seem circuitous to state that if the patent is pertinent the presumption will be reduced because the determination of pertinency depends to some extent upon a determination of the merits.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
LUNDY ELECTRONICS & SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant,
v.
OPTICAL RECOGNITION SYSTEMS, INC., Appellee; LUNDY ELECTRONICS & SYSTEMS, INC., Appellee, v. OPTICAL RECOGNITION SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant
73-1998, 73-1999.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Mar 25, 1974.
493 F.2d 1222
George W. Whitney, New York City (Granville M. Brumbaugh, Jr., Richard S. Clark, New York City, Boothe, Pri-chard & Dudley, Alexandria, Va., and Brumbaugh, Graves, Donohue & Raymond, New York City, on brief), for Lundy Electronics & Systems, Inc., Jim Zegeer, Washington, D. C. (Martin Abramson, Browne, Beveridge, De-Grandi & Kline, Francis C. Browne, Washington, D. C., Dayton R. Stemple, Jr., Washington, D. C., Edward T. Colbert, Baltimore, Md., Larry Suiters, Kinney, Smith & Barham, Arlington, Va., Jack L. Lahr, Arent, Fox, Kinter, Plotkin & Kahn, Washington, D. C., on brief), for Optical Recognition Systems, Inc.
Haynsworth, Craven, Butzner.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

From a judgment holding Claims 1-4, 9, 11-16, 23, 24, 28, and 30 of Dykaar and Stein’s United States Patent No. 3,535,682 valid but not infringed, Lundy Electronics & Systems, Inc., the assignee and owner of all interests in the patent, appeals the ruling on the question of infringement. Optical Recognition Systems, Inc., the manufacturer of the accused device, appeals the declaration of validity. We affirm on the excellent opinion of the district judge. Lundy Electronics & Systems, Inc. v. Optical Recognition Systems, Inc., 362 F.Supp. 130 (E.D.Va.1973).

The claims in question disclose a method and apparatus for automatically reeogniring magnetic ink characters that are printed on documents. The most important example mentioned in the patent is the recognition of characters shaped in the type E-13 B font that are imprinted on the lower left-hand edge of bank checks and deposit slips.

The record depicts a crowded technical field in which advances over the prior art are very narrow. Dykaar and Stein’s departure from existing systems, though slight, is sufficient to justify the district court’s holding that their invention was neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by the prior art, and it properly held other attacks on the validity of the patent to be without merit.

Although the accused device performs the same ultimate function as that described in the patent, the district court found that it employs significantly different timing circuitry and means for establishing reference voltage levels. These findings are not clearly erroneous. Though the advance they achieve is slight, they are sufficient to negate the charge of infringement.

Affirmed.