Ottinger v. Ferro Stamping & Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 29 June 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 5890.,5890. |
| Citation | 59 F.2d 640 |
| Parties | OTTINGER et al. v. FERRO STAMPING & MFG. CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
W. H. Davis, of New York City, for appellants.
Charles B. Belknap, of Detroit, Mich., for appellee.
Before MOORMAN, HICKS, and HICKENLOOPER, Circuit Judges.
Appellants brought their action in the court below for injunction and accounting, alleging the infringement by appellee of claims 1, 2, and 4 of reissue patent No. 15,569, to Leon Ottinger (application January 29, 1920), hereinafter referred to as the reissue patent in suit; claim 16 of patent No. 1,436,050, to Leon Ottinger (application October 24, 1921), hereinafter referred to as Ottinger's second patent; and claims 1 and 3 of patent No. 1,468,954, to Seymour M. Bradley (application May 17, 1921), hereinafter referred to as the Bradley patent. The District Court found that none of these claims was infringed, and dismissed the bill of complaint. This appeal followed. A typical claim from each patent is printed in the margin.1
All the patents in suit have to do with latches for vehicle doors especially adapted to the inclosed type of automobile, and in the use of which the exterior handle may be locked against rotation without affecting the free reciprocating movement of the latch bolt by force applied directly to its end. With this equipment the windows of the vehicle may be closed, the locking device set upon all doors, or all doors but one, that one being equipped with means for locking or unlocking from the outside by use of a key, and the doors, if open, may be thereafter closed without affecting the locking device already set.
At the time of application for the patents in suit, it had long been customary to retract the bolt of a vehicle door latch either from the outside of the vehicle by rotation of an exterior handle, to the spindle of which was affixed a cam contacting with a depending arm or projection on the latch bolt, or from the inside by use of a pivoted lever, also equipped with a roll-back contacting with an upwardly extending projection of the bolt. See patent to Tiesing, No. 243,006, June 14, 1891. The vehicle latch of the Tiesing patent had no lock, but in the French patent to Davignon, No. 378,156, dated May 25, 1907, we have a vehicle latch operable by an exterior rotating handle, with a cam contacting an abutment upon the latch bolt, or by an interior pivoted lever, also contacting with a similar abutment upon the bolt. This latch was provided with a locking device for the exterior handle in the form of a cam, in shape the segment of more than 180° of a circle, which might be brought into engagement with a complementary notch in the top of the roll-back for that handle, thus immobilizing the roll-back. This immobilizing means could be removed from engagement from the exterior by a key, or the door unlocked manually from within, but the unlocking operation could not be performed simply by retraction of the pivoted lever (see Bradley's patent and Ottinger's second patent, infra). It is to be noted, however, that as early as 1907 Davignon had conceived the utility of permitting the free retraction of the bolt by use of the inside lever, or by pressure directly exerted upon it, even after the roll-back for the exterior handle had been locked, thus permitting the door to be thereafter opened from the inside, or closed, without effect upon the locking means. This was also common in ordinary house-door latches.
In the patent to Ochsner, No. 1,331,166, application filed November 18, 1919, the cam rotated by the exterior handle was transferred from beneath the latch bolt, as in Tiesing, to above it (compare also arrangement in patent to Fest, No. 378,582 1888 and patent to Davignon, supra), and the extension of the bolt with which this cam or roll-back contacted was curved partly around the spindle and was shorter than the roll-back, so that the latter, extending vertically upward, overtopped the projection with which it was designed to contact. Ochsner provided a manually operable lock for the exterior handle in the shape of a pivoted dog which was normally elevated above the roll-back but could be lowered to blocking position, being frictionally held in either position by a spring-actuated ball which fitted into slight depressions provided for the purpose. Ochsner also had the idea, likewise present in some of the earlier devices (see patent to Manning, No. 941,327 1909, and patent to Daniels, No. 215,580 1879, to be hereafter discussed), of unlocking the exterior handle simply by the retraction of the bolt by the interior lever. This had the accompanying objection in Ochsner's device, however, that, if the locking means was set with the door open, and the door then slammed, the retraction of the latch bolt through the closing of the door would also unlock the exterior handle.
In his reissue patent in suit, Ottinger provided a locking means in the form of a separable, manually operated, sliding bolt pin having at its outer end a knurled head. When this pin was pressed to its inward position, it constituted an abutment, preventing rearward movement both of the inside lever and, through a connecting rod, of the roll-back for the outside handle, but permitting free reciprocating movement of the latch bolt. When the pin was forced outwardly, either by manual pull or by a key, the abutment was removed and the latch unlocked. We see little, if anything, of patentable novelty in the device of this patent, or of justification for the broad claims which were inserted upon reissue. In our opinion, the French patent to Davignon and the ordinary house-door latch were complete anticipations, for the desired result is there accomplished in substantially the same manner, the blocking of the roll-back for the exterior handle. Nor do we think that it would require more than mechanical ability to so modify the latch of Ochsner, or even the latch of Pfleghar (patent No. 914,669, 1909), so as to produce Ottinger's reissue device, if there were, in fact, any advantages or elements of increased utility of this latch over those of the prior art. We need not therefore consider the question of infringement of this patent.
The inventive concept underlying the second Ottinger and the Bradley patents in suit was more imaginative — possibly a helpful criterion in determining the existence of invention. Ochsner had conceived the existence of greater utility in a vehicle door latch which could be unlocked by simple...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
WF & John Barnes Co. v. International Harvester Co.
...Court of Customs and Patent Appeals in Re Youker, supra; by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Ottinger v. Ferro Stamping & Mfg. Co., 59 F.2d 640, 643; by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Hazeltine Corp. v. Abrams, 79 F.2d 329; and by the Circuit Cou......
-
Printing Plate Supply Co. v. Crescent Engraving Co.
...his own and clearly allied lines of endeavor, he is not bound by what has been done in remote or nonanalogous arts. Ottinger v. Ferro Stamping & Mfg. Co., 6 Cir., 59 F.2d 640; Alemite Mfg. Corp. v. Rogers Products Co., Inc., 3 Cir., 42 F.2d 648. A reference, in order to be effective to disp......
-
Aluminum Company of America v. Sperry Products, Inc.
...bound by what has been done in remote or non-analogous arts." Allied Wheel Products v. Rude, supra, 755. See also: Ottinger v. Ferro Stamping & Mfg. Co., 6 Cir., 59 F.2d 640; Alemite Mfg. Corp. v. Rogers Products Co., Inc., 3 Cir., 42 F.2d In A. J. Deer Co., Inc. v. United States Slicing Ma......
-
Zephyr American Corporation v. Bates Mfg. Co.
...lines of endeavor. Bone v. Commissioners of Marion County, 251 U.S. 134, 144, 40 S.Ct. 96, 64 L.Ed. 188; Ottinger v. Ferro Stamping & Manufacturing Co., 6 Cir., 59 F.2d 640, 642. It is a prerequisite to patentability that the invention must not have been known or used by others in this coun......