discussed Cited "see" Ceeco MacHinery Manufacturing, Ltd. v. Intercole, Inc. See Smith v. Dental Products Co., Inc., 140 F.2d 140, 152 (7th Cir.) (to show that infringer was duly notified, “proof must be made no less definite and certain than that required” for proof of actual marking), ce rt. denied, 322 U.S. 743 , 64 S.Ct. 1146 , 88 L.Ed. 1576 (1944); Franklin Brass Foundry Co. v. Shapiro & Aronson, 278 F. 435, 437 (3rd Cir.1921) (defendant is not “duly notified” unless “the facts with which he is supplied would, if fixed upon the patented article, constitute ‘sufficient notice’ ”).

discussed Cited "see" Chrysler Motors Corp. v. Alloy Automotive Co., Inc. See Smith v. Dental Products Co., Inc., 140 F.2d 140, 148 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 322 U.S. 743 , 64 S.Ct. 1146 , 88 L.Ed. 1576 (1944); Donald F. Duncan, Inc. v. Royal Tops Manufacturing Co., Inc., 343 F.2d 655, 657 (7th Cir.1965).