In these alleged patent infringement proceedings, the plaintiffs American Hoist & Derrick Company and T. S. DeCuir appeal from the judgment dismissing the action entered by the District Court on February 27, 1978. The defendant The Manitowoc Company, Inc. cross-appeals from a separate judgment of even date dismissing its counterclaims.
We note jurisdiction and for the valid reasons stated in the District Court’s opinion, 448 F.Supp. 1372 (E.D.Wis.1978), the several judgments are each affirmed. We are satisfied that the District Court’s opinion provides sufficient and correct answers to the various contentions of the appellants and cross-appellant on this appeal.
We do note, however, a strained and inconsequential inconsistency in the District Court’s opinion. The District Court first opined, 448 F.Supp. at 1383-84:
“The issue, as I view it, is whether the roller carrier of the accused Ringer cranes constitutes ‘a platform mounted for horizontal rotation.’ I find that it is. The roller carrier rides atop the encircling ring, thereby providing horizontal rotation. The mast and boom are pivotally mounted to the roller carrier, which serves as a platform. Therefore, I find that the mast and boom are pivotally mounted on a platform for horizontal rotation, as described in the DeCuir patent.”
And inconsistently at 1384:
“To summarize, all of the accused Ringer cranes lack two of the elements described in claim 12 of the DeCuir patent: (1) ‘mobile support means,’ and (2) a mast and boom pivotally mounted on the platform. Furthermore, two of the accused Ringer crane models, the 4600 Series II and III, lack power means for pivoting the mast. Accordingly, I find that the accused cranes do not infringe claim 12 of the DeCuir patent.”
In view of the opinion as a whole, we take the District Court’s language “(2) a mast and boom pivotally mounted on the platform” to infer that the word “platform” was intended to mean a mobile platform. The boom and mast on the Ringer crane are pivoted on a boom carrier which rides directly on the ring which, however, is immobile during lifts.
Furthermore the District Court concluded, 448 F.Supp. at 1384, that:
“Since claim 13, referring to the ‘mast and boom stop means,’ and claim 14, referring to a means connected to the boom for supporting a load, incorporate by reference the apparatus claimed in claim 12, there can be no infringement of those claims either. 35 U.S.C. § 112.”
To find infringement, the Court must determine that every element of a claim alleged to be infringed must be found in the accused device, Mobil Oil Corp. v. Filtrol Corp., 501 F.2d 282, 291 (9th Cir. 1974)— that the accused device is a copy “either without variation, or with such variations as are consistent with its being in substance the same thing.” Engelhard Industries, Inc. v. Research Instrumental Corp., 324 F.2d 347, 351 (9th Cir. 1963), quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 573, 17 L.Ed. 661 (1863). Therefore, even if only one of the two or three reasons for non-infringement is sustained, the conclusion of non-infringement remains intact.
The judgments of the District Court are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.