¶1E. W. Shepard, of Washington, D. C.,, and Roy F. Lovell, of Pawtucket, R. I., for appellant.
¶2Wm. Wallace Cochran and Edwin L. Reynolds, both of Washington, .D. C., for appellee.
¶3Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and MILLER and RUTLEDGE, Associate Justices.
¶5The claims upon which appellant seeks a patent relate to a knitting machine, constructed and adapted to knit hosiery. The Patent Office and the District Court both held that no invention was involved. We have arrived at the same conclusion. The lower tribunals relied upon three references which, while differing in some respects from appellant’s machine, reveal arrangements for producing stitch variations, from which a mechanic skilled in the art could, without invention, reasonably be expected to produce such improvements as are claimed by appellant. More than this is required to call for the issuance of a patent.1
¶6Affirmed.