23 F.2d 625 (6th Cir. 1928), 4940, Goodbody v. Firestone Steel Products Co.
|Citation:||23 F.2d 625|
|Party Name:||GOODBODY et al. v. FIRESTONE STEEL PRODUCTS CO.|
|Case Date:||January 03, 1928|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|
John F. Oberlin, of Cleveland, Ohio (Baker, Hostetler & Sidlo, Fay, Oberlin & Fay, and Jos. C. Hostetler, all of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for appellants.
A. L. Ely, of Akron, Ohio, and F. O. Richey, of Cleveland, Ohio (Ely & Barrow, of Akron, Ohio, on the brief), for appellee.
Before DENISON and MOORMAN, Circuit Judges, and RAYMOND, District judge.
RAYMOND, District Judge.
This appeal involves the validity and infringement of United States letters patent No. 1,031,236, issued to the Firestone Tire & Rubber Company, July 2,1912, on application of P. B. Bosworth, for vehicle wheel rims. Applicant assigned to patentee prior to issuance of patent, and plaintiff appellee is now the owner thereof by assignment in 1918. The infringement charged is alleged to have been by defendant as receiver while operating the plants of the Hydraulic Steel Company and the Cleveland Welding & Manufacturing Company. The District Court held the patent valid and infringed, and the usual interlocutory decree for injunction and accounting was entered.
The claimed invention pertains essentially to a means to permit the quick detachment of pneumatic or other tires from vehicle wheel rims. The important element is a split locking ring specially formed to hold in place a removable tire flange. The objects of the invention are stated to be 'the production of a construction in which the locking ring for holding the removable tire flange in operative position and the co-operating parts of the rim proper shall be such as to secure a maximum of strength and security with a minimum amount of metal * * * to hold the flange most securely in place, to reduce to the lowest limit the tendency of the locking ring to leave its groove in the rim, and to obtain the best bracing effect by the ring on the flange.'
In addition to the usual defenses of invalidity by reason of anticipation and for lack of invention, a supplemental defense of estoppel is urged which arises from the proceedings in the Patent Office. The application was filed June 4, 1910, and was a division of an original application filed December 24, 1909. The first four claims of the patent as finally issued were rejected upon Bryant 772,209, Baker 913,253, Litchfield 943,029, and Evans 949,888. No appeal was taken from the final rejection, but instead an affidavit, which claimed February 14, 1907, as the date of invention, was filed under Patent Office rule 75, and thereby priority was sought over all citations except Bryant. Thereupon the patent was issued. Defendant asserts that the patentee thereby admitted the pertinence of the citations and acquiesced in the rejection of his claims as orginally filed. It is argued that plaintiff, not having established priority over such references upon the trial, is not entitled to the presumption of validity, and that the claims secured thereby are ab initio invalid. No attempt was made by plaintiff at the trial to establish the truth of...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP