Expanded Metal Company v. Eugene Bradford No 66 General Fireproofing Company v. Expanded Metal Company No 606
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Citation | 53 L.Ed. 1034,214 U.S. 366,29 S.Ct. 652 |
Docket Number | Nos. 66 and 606,s. 66 and 606 |
Parties | EXPANDED METAL COMPANY and Henry Chess, Walter Chess, and Harvey B. Chess, Copartners as Chess Brothers, Petitioners, v. EUGENE S. BRADFORD, Joseph C. Millichamp, N. J. Schmucker, Jr., and N. J. Schmucker. NO 66. GENERAL FIREPROOFING COMPANY, Petitioner, v. EXPANDED METAL COMPANY. NO 606 |
Decision Date | 01 June 1909 |
Mr. Ernest Howard Hunter for the Expanded Metal Company.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 367-367 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Thomas W. Bakewell, Frederick P. Fish, and E. Hayward Fairbanks for the General Fireproofing Company.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 370-373 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court:
These cases involve opposing decisions as to the validity of letters patent of the United States No. 527,242, dated Octo- ber 9, 1894, granted to John E. Golding for an alleged improvement in the method of making expanded sheet metal. In case No. 66, here on writ of certiorari to the circuit court of appeals for the third circuit, a decree of the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Pennsylvania, sustaining the patent, was reversed, and the patent held invalid. The opinion of the circuit judge sustaining the patent is found in 136 Fed. 870. The case in the court of appeals is found in 77 C. C. A. 230, 146 Fed. 984. After the decree in the circuit court of appeals for the third circuit, the Expanded Metal Company having filed a bill against the General Fireproofing Company in the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of Ohio, the case was heard and the patent held invalid on the authority of the case in the circuit court of appeals for the third circuit. 157 Fed. 564. The circuit court of appeals for the sixth circuit reversed the United States circuit court for the northern district of Ohio, and held Golding's patent valid and infringed. 164 Fed. 849. These writs of certiorari bring these conflicting decisions of the courts of appeal here for review.
The patent in controversy relates to what is known as expanded sheet metal. Expanded metal may be generally described as metal openwork, held together by uncut portions of the metal, and constructed by making cuts or slashes in metal and then opening them so as to form a series of meshes or latticework. In its simplest form, sheet metal may be expanded by making a series of cuts or slits in the metal in such relation to each other as to break joints, so that the metal. when opened or stretched, will present an open mesh appearance. It may be likened to the familiar woven wire openwork construction, except that the metal is held together by uncut portions thereof, uniting the strands, and the whole forms a solid piece.
In the earlier patents different methods are shown for cutting the metal, which cuts were afterwards opened by a separate operation of pulling or stretching. These crude methods are shown in the earlier American and English patents which appear in the record. While nothing more than such methods was accomplished in the art there was little general or commercial use for expanded metal.
It was apparent that if a method could be devised by which the metal could be simultaneously cut and expanded, such method would be a distinct advance in the art, and this record discloses that the desirable result of simultaneously performing these operations was accomplished in the Golding and Durkee patent No. 320,242. In that patent the operation was performed by means of knives arranged in a step order, the sheet to be fed obliquely. The inventors described the Golding and Durkee method as follows:
The result was to produce expanded metal, as shown in this figure:
[NOTE: MATERIAL SET AT THIS POINT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE (GRAPHIC OR TABULAR MATERIAL)]
With this patent as the advanced state of the art, Golding set about making further improvements, and the result was the patent in suit. The specifications of the patent in suit state:
'In my present invention I seek to avail myself of the ability of the metal to stretch or distend as well as or its ability to bend under strain or pressure, and the invention consists in the improved method of making expanded metal viz., by simultaneously cutting and opening or expanding the metal at the cuts by stretching the severed portions.'
In the method further described in the specifications, the expanded metal is shown to be made by the use of knives making a series of slits in a straight line at equal distances apart across the sheet, and, at the same time, carrying downward the severed portions of the metal. And this operation is performed by bending the severed portion at a time when its ends are securely attached to the main sheet, thereby expanding the sheet without materially shortening it. The sheet is then fed forward, and the slitting and stretching operation is repeated in such a manner that the slits are in every case made back of the portion unsevered by the preceding operation, or, in other words, as the specification states, the slits and unsevered portions alternate in position in each successive operation, the bends given to the severed portions or strands being in direction at right angles to the plane of the sheet, there is no contraction in the length of the metal, and the expansion is obtained by the stretching, distension, or elongation of the severed strand. This patent contains the single claim, which is as follows:
'The herein-described method of making open or reticulated metal work, which consists in simultaneously slitting and bending portions of a plate or sheet of metal in such manner as to stretch or elongate the bars connecting the slit portions and body of the sheet or plate, and then similarly slitting and bending in places alternate to the firstmentioned portions, thus producing the finished expanded sheet metal of the same length as that of the original sheet or plate, substantially as described.'
It is thus apparent that the method covered by the claim of the patent is accomplished by the two operations indicated and performed in the manner pointed out in the specifications. The first operation of cutting, bending, and stretching the strands simultaneously produces a series of stretched loops or half diamonds. Thus:
[NOTE: MATERIAL SET AT THIS POINT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE (GRAPHIC OR TABULAR MATERIAL)]
This series of half diamonds is then supplemented by the second operation, which consists in making a second series of cuts and expansions for stretching the strands back of and opposite the parts of the metal left uncut by the first operation. The result is that the series of one-half diamonds is converted into the series of full diamonds and because of the manner in which the stretching is done, while the ends of the strands are still firmly attached to the sheet, there is no material shortening of the length of the sheet. Thus:
[NOTE: MATERIAL SET AT THIS POINT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE (GRAPHIC OR TABULAR MATERIAL)]
What has Golding accomplished by this alleged improvement? These records leave no doubt that there are substantial advantages in the method of the patent in suit. As the sheet is not shortened, the completed product is regular in form and ready for many uses to which the shortened sheet of the old method could not be put. The metal worked upon can be much heavier than that which could be successfully manipulated by the old process. The meshes are formed in a uniform and regular way, so that a line drawn through their intersections in one direction is at right angles with a line drawn through their intersections in the other direction. There is no irregularity in the width of the strands. Put to the test of actual use, this record discloses that while the method of the Golding and Durkee patent is still in use in some places in this country, the method disclosed in the patent in controversy is largely in use in the United States, Great Britain,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Delco Chemicals v. Cee-Bee Chemical Co.
... ... Glitsch & Sons, Inc., v. Wyatt Metal & Boiler Works, 5 Cir., 1955, 224 F.2d 331, 335; ... 773, 66 S.Ct. 232, 90 L.Ed. 467; Himmel Bros. Co. v ... Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford, 1909, 214 U.S. 366, 384, ... to take judicial notice of matters of general knowledge which indicate that a * * * method is ... ...
-
Donner v. Sheer Pharmacal Corporation
...L. Ed. 553; Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co., 185 U. S. 403, 437, 22 S. Ct. 698, 46 L. Ed. 968; Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford, 214 U. S. 366, 383, 29 S. Ct. 652, 53 L. Ed. 1034; Holland Furniture Co. v. Perkins Glue Co., 277 U. S. 245, 257, 48 S. Ct. 474, 72 L. Ed. 868; Schaum & Uhli......
-
Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Technical Tape Corp.
...by Tierney, Hurd, Danovitch, and Schmidt, which fact plaintiff cites as indicative of invention (Expanded Metal Company v. Bradford, 214 U.S. 366, 29 S.Ct. 652, 53 L.Ed. 1034 (1909); Smith v. Snow, et al., 294 U.S. 1, 55 S.Ct. 279, 79 L.Ed. 721 (1935); Reiner, et al. v. I. Leon Co., Inc., 2......
-
Diamond International Corporation v. Walterhoefer
... ... In general, no satisfactory automatable locking had been ... , Ct.Cl.1966, 151 USPQ 506; Webster Loom Company v. Higgins, 1882, 15 Otto 580, 105 U.S. 580, 591, ... is for a "Cigarette Case", of thin sheet metal bent to form an enclosing box-like structure ... * * *" ... Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford, 1909, 214 U.S. 366, 381, ... 66 ... There was no evidence that ... ...
-
Ordinary creativity in patent law: the artist within the scientist.
...88 U.S. 112, 119 (1874). (76.) See Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co., 93 U.S. 486, 494 (1876); Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford, 214 U.S. 366, 381 (1909) ("[I]f those skilled in the mechanical arts are working in a given field, and have failed, after repeated efforts, to discover a certa......
-
Software patent developments: a programmer's perspective.
...294 U.S. 1 (1935); Waxham v. Smith, 294 U.S. 20 (1935) (processes for setting eggs in staged incubation); Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford, 214 U.S. 366 (1909) (process for expanding metal); Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U.S. (2 Otto) 707 (1880) (process for manufacturing "fat acids and glycerine ......