53 F. 375 (S.D.N.Y. 1892), Lalance & Grosjean Mfg. Co. v. Habermann Mfg. Co.
|Citation:||53 F. 375|
|Party Name:||LALANCE & GROSJEAN MANUF'G CO. v. HABERMANN MANUF'G CO.|
|Case Date:||December 22, 1892|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|
Arthur v. Briesen, for complainant.
Robert N. Kenyon, for defendant.
COXE, District Judge.
The complainant sues for the infringement of letters patent No. 279,094, granted to Emile Kegreisz, June 5, 1883, for an improvement in the ornamentation of enameled ironware. The invention consists in an improved method of giving a variegated appearance to the ware, by recoating it with a colored liquid after it has been enameled by the usual method. By this process imperfections are concealed, and an irregularly mottled, wavy appearance is imparted to the article recoated, which enhances its beauty and value. The specification describes the process as follows:
'After the ordinary process of enameling has been completed, I prepare a thin glaze, composed of any coloring matter that can be made to remain mechanically suspended a short time in water, and apply it to the article, preferably either by immersing the latter in a tank containing said glaze, or by pouring the glaze upon the article. The glaze should be made sufficiently thin to avoid being pasty, so that it will freely spread or run over the surface. After the article has been submitted to the second bath of thin glaze, the latter will be found to separate and coagulate in irregular spots upon the smooth surface formed by the first coating of glaze. * * * After the application of the glaze, the article is placed in a drying over heated to a temperature of about 130 degrees Fahrenheit, and is kept there until the glaze is approximately dry, when it is removed to the oven or muffle employed in the well-known enameling processes, where it is a second time fired, as in the usual process of enameling.'
The claims are:
'(1) The hereinbefore described process of enameling and ornamenting metal ware, which consists in first covering the body of the article with a glaze of any suitable plain color, firing the same, then applying to the surface an additional coating or partial coating of glaze, of a different color from the first, the glaze constituting the second coating or partial coating being of such a consistency as to coagulate in irregular spots upon the surface, and again firing, as set forth. (2) As a new article of manufacture, an enameled vessel presenting a mottled or variegated surface of two or more colors, produced by the coagulation in irregular spots of one or more of the coatings of glaze, substantially as set forth.'
The principal defenses are, insufficiency of the specification, anticipation, want of invention and noninfringement. The proof shows that in order to produce the mottled appearance referred to the enamel must be ground coarse, and the defendant argues that the specification is defective because it...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP