Wintermute v. Hermetic Seal Corporation, 13003.

Decision Date08 June 1960
Docket NumberNo. 13003.,13003.
Citation279 F.2d 60
PartiesCarlton H. WINTERMUTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HERMETIC SEAL CORPORATION.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

Arthur Auslander, New York City (William A. Consodine, Newark, N. J., Smith & Auslander, New York City on the brief), for appellant.

Philip G. Hilbert, New York City (Ravin & Ravin, Newark, N. J., on the brief), for appellee.

Before GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN and KALODNER, Circuit Judges.

KALODNER, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff, Carlton H. Wintermute, commenced this action in the court below to enjoin infringement of his patent, No. 2,454,244, and for other relief. The substituted defendant, Hermetic Seal Corporation, successor insofar as this case is concerned to the two original defendants as a result of Chapter XI proceedings, pressed the assertion of the invalidity of the patent in issue, which the District Court sustained. 171 F.Supp. 770. This appeal followed.

Most of us are aware of the fact that each radio transmitting station is assigned a definite transmitting frequency, and that to avoid interference it is essential to maintain that frequency constant. Piezo-electric quartz crystals will enable radio circuits to maintain selected frequencies and in modern radio circuit frequencies such crystals are employed for control. It is essential to maintain the stability and activity of the crystal for efficient results. And efficient results are of utmost importance in the light of requirements imposed by modern facilities and usages.

As with many other things and in many other fields, critical deficiencies in existing equipment were exposed by the adverse conditions of use dictated by World War II. In the relevant instance, the use of compact radio equipment in which crystals were essential components, in tropical zones, exposed the fact that equipment suitable in ordinary climatic conditions fell somewhat short of military needs. Moisture, fungus and other contaminants affected the crystal activity because of the close clearances involved, and temperature and physical stress affected the crystal stability, i. e., the ability of the crystal to stay at a given frequency of vibration.

Intended to meet this need, and as plaintiff impresses upon us, at a time when the nation at war had urgent need for it, is the patent in issue. It is a hermetically sealed housing for the piezoelectric crystal to prevent the intrusion of atmosphere into its interior, is sturdy and compact, and still permits a current to flow through the housed device without interference. It uses a Kovar header and pins sealed by a matching glass seal in which the pins also serve as mechanical support for the crystal holder and for the crystal mounting element.

As set forth in the broadly stated claims 6 and 14 of his patent,1 the only claims here in issue, the plaintiff used a stamped metallic base with one or two openings; sealed a metal pin in each opening by a glass seal, the pin establishing the external electrical connection, and also internally, establishing the electrical connection with the mounting of the piezo-electric element; and a metal cover or cap for the crystal and base, sealed to the base with solder for making the housing moisture-proof. It is essential that the base, pins and glass seal have substantially equal thermal coefficients of expansion, thus enabling the application of moderate heat for the soldering of the cap to the base without breaking the seal and thus impairing the insulation of the pins from the base.

The District Court has given a more elaborate description of the patent, and has detailed the patents cited as prior art. We have carefully reviewed the District Court's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Barrott v. Drake Casket Company
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • September 16, 1960
    ...efficient and hence more useful in the art, it is still the product of mechanical skill and not of invention." In Wintermute v. Hermetic Seal Corporation, 3 Cir., 279 F.2d 60, involving the validity of a patent described as a moisture-proof housing for piezoelectric elements, the court said......
  • Bussemer v. Artwire Creations, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • June 30, 1964
    ...F.2d 196 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 832, 83 S.Ct. 1873, 10 L.Ed.2d 1054 (1963). 23 Id. at 200, quoting Wintermute v. Hermetic Seal Corp., 279 F.2d 60, 62 (3d Cir. 1960). 24 See Welsh Mfg. Co. v. Sunware Prods. Co., 236 F.2d 225 (2d Cir. 1956) distinguishing Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb Opti......
  • Maytag Company v. Murray Corporation of America
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • June 5, 1963
    ...Company of America v. Sperry Products, Inc., supra; Ohmer Fare Register Co. v. Ohmer, 238 F. 182, 186-187, C.A. 6; Wintermute v. Hermetic Seal Corporation, 279 F.2d 60, 62, C.A. 3. Invention under this test is a question of fact. Sterling Aluminum Products, Inc. v. Bohn Aluminum & Brass Cor......
  • Gross v. JFD Manufacturing Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • March 1, 1963
    ...Prods. Corp., 190 F.2d 921 (2 Cir., 1951), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 913, 72 S.Ct. 360, 96 L.Ed. 683 (1952). In Wintermute v. Hermetic Seal Corp., 279 F.2d 60, 62 (3 Cir., 1960), the rule was "We do not mean that the plaintiff has not produced a useful article, and we have carefully sought to ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT