Lalance & Grosjean Mfg. Co. v. Habermann Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 22 December 1892
• Citation: 53 F. 375
• Parties: LALANCE & GROSJEAN MANUF'G CO. v. HABERMANN MANUF'G CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

53 F. 375

LALANCE & GROSJEAN MANUF'G CO. v. HABERMANN MANUF'G CO.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. New York.

December 22, 1892

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 omits all reference to coarse grinding. The argument in this regard is admirably summarized in the defendant's brief as follows:

'The patent says that all that is necessary is a thin glaze. There is no suggestion that it is to be ground in any different way from ordinary glaze. Ordinary glaze is ground fine. Any person reading the patent, and finding that nothing was said in the patent to the effect that the glaze should be ground differently from ordinary glaze would naturally grind the glaze fine. If he did so it is admitted that he could not carry out the process of the patent in suit. He would be left to find out by experiment what else was necessary. He might discover that coarse grinding was necessary and he might not.'

The paragraph of the specification which is pointed out as particularly imparting the desired information is this 'I prepare a thin glaze composed of any coloring matter that can be made to remain mechanically suspended a short time in water. ' That this statement is not as perspicuous as it might be may as well be admitted. Undoubtedly Irving or Hawthorne could have done better. But the description is not addressed to rhetoricians or lawyers, but to enamelers. I am inclined to think that a competent enameler, reading the language quoted in the light of the avowed purpose of the patentee to produce irregular spots upon the smooth surface formed by a coating of enamel applied in the ordinary way, would have little difficulty in finding the patented process. He would know, first, that the second glaze must differ from the first glaze; second, that it must be capable of separating and coagulating in irregular spots; third, that it must be thin, and, fourth, that the coloring matter must remain mechanically suspended a short time in water. When to the information of the patent he added the information of his vocation-- that fine ground enamel remains suspended a long time only-- it would naturally occur to him that a glaze that would coagulate, that was thin, that contained coloring matter which would remain suspended a short time, must be made with coarse-ground enamel. If the specification had declared that the enamel was to remain suspended 'only a short time,' the description would have been sufficient. This is hardly denied. One familiar with the art would, it is thought, have no difficulty in supplying the missing...