Jockmus (C5P57): P holds patent on light bulb holder in shape of a candle. D asserts lack of novelty because P’s invention was anticipated by a picture of a similar product in a catalogue distributed to French customers.
(A)    Issue: Was the catalogue sufficient disclosure? Picture didn’t show how one part was fastened, may have been different. Holding: Patent was anticipated
(B)    Reasoning
(1)    ”We know of no rule that figures can never of themselves be an adequate anticipation of mechanical inventions, as of course they must be of designs, and we can see no reason for importing into the statute an arbitrary distinction, unrelated to its purposes.” Finds possible differences to be equivalent.
(2)    For purposes of the patent, printed publications are not limited to formal publications. Catalogue was distributed to the public, at least 50 and as much as 1000 went out, no evidence of disruption in distribution.