EH Sheldon & Co. v. Miller Office Supply Co.
Decision Date | 08 March 1960 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 2221. |
Parties | E. H. SHELDON & CO., Plaintiff, v. MILLER OFFICE SUPPLY CO. (Inc.) Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
Lawrence B. Biebel and Marechal, Biebel, French & Bugg, Dayton, Ohio, Wupper, Gradolph & Love, Benjamin F. Wupper and John T. Love, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.
Toulmin & Toulmin, H. H. Brown and H. A. Toulmin, Jr., Dayton Ohio, for defendant.
CECIL, Circuit Judge, sitting by designation.
The plaintiff, E. H. Sheldon & Co., a corporation, in its complaint charges the defendant, Miller Office Supply Co., Inc., a corporation, with infringing a design patent to which it holds legal title. The defendant denies infringement and sets up the affirmative defense of invalidity of the patent.
The case was tried and submitted to the Court upon the pleadings, the evidence and briefs of counsel.
The patent in suit is Design number 173281 and covers an invention by R. B. Morrison of a laboratory table unit. The patent was assigned by Morrison to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has engaged in the manufacture and sale of the laboratory table units under the patent since its issue.
The defendant sells school equipment throughout the state of Ohio and is the exclusive agent in Ohio for Taylor Manufacturing Company, of Taylor, Texas. This company made the accused product which was sold by the defendant to Gallia Academy and Wickliffe High Schools. These sales are the subject of the charge of infringement.
Design patents are authorized by Section 171 of Title 35 U.S.C. This section reads, "Whoever invents any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title."
The leading case defines design patents as follows: Gorham Company v. White, 14 Wall. 511, 524, 525, 81 U.S. 511, 20 L.Ed. 731.
The scope of the alleged invention is the first subject presented by the issues in the case. This is a question of law. Heald v. Rice, 104 U.S. 737, 26 L.Ed. 910; Motor Wheel Corp. v. Rubsam Corp., 6 Cir., 92 F.2d 129; Baldwin Rubber Co. v. Paine & Williams Co., 6 Cir., 99 F.2d 1.
The claim of the patentor is, "The ornamental design for a laboratory table unit, substantially as shown and described." The only specifications refer to the drawings in Figures one and two.
Where there are no specifications or detailed description the claim covers the design as a whole as shown in the drawings or illustrations. Dobson v. Dornan, 118 U.S. 10, 14, 15, 6 S.Ct. 946, 30 L.Ed. 63; Edison Electric Appliance Co. v. Fitzgerald Mfg. Co., 2 Cir., 32 F. 2d 705, 706; Ashley v. Samuel C. Tatum Co., 2 Cir., 186 F. 339. In Ashley et al. v. Weeks-Numan Co., 2 Cir., 220 F. 899, the court said, at page 903, "and in Ashley v. Tatum, 2 Cir., 186 F. 339, * *, which was a design patent for an ink-stand, and which was without any written description, we held that, in the absence of a written specification, the patentee is limited to substantially the precise article shown in the drawing of the patent." (Emphasis added.)
The patent here then is a diamond-with-stem table top housing or covering cabinets within its confines as a whole and as shown in the drawings. The diamond-with-stem table top is the distinctive feature of the design and is that which distinguishes it from the prior art.
"The thing invented for which a design patent is given is that which gives a distinctive appearance to the article to which it may be applied." Thabet Mfg. Co. v. Kool Vent Metal Awning Corp. of America, 6 Cir., 226 F.2d 207, 212.
The defense charges that the patent is invalid on several counts.
Section 282, Title 35 U.S.C. It is to be noted from Section 171, above quoted, that a design to be patentable must constitute invention and be new, original and ornamental.
Counsel for the defendant challenge the patent in suit for the absence of all of these elements. In support of their argument they say that the Morrison patent is anticipated by prior art. (Defendant's Ex. U, containing six mechanical patents, three design patents and two foreign patents.) To prove their point counsel take various features of Morrison's Laboratory table unit, one by one, and compare them with some feature of the various prior patents.
The Court does not understand this to be a proper test for determining anticipation by prior art. In Ashley v. Weeks-Numan Co., supra, the court said at page 902 of 220 F., "This court has before said, and now repeats, that the fact that each separate element in a patented design was old does not negative invention, which may reside in the manner in which they are assembled, since it is the design as a whole, and the impression it makes on the eye, which must be considered." The subject of inquiry here, involves beauty, ornamentation, something that appeals to the aesthetic sense. "Lack of novelty or originality in a design cannot be successfully alleged, unless, to an intelligent general observer interested in the subject, it has the same appearance as that of some design previously produced." Matthews & Willard Mfg. Co. v. American Lamp & Brass Co., C.C., 103 F. 634, 639.
Glen Raven Knitting Mills, Inc. v. Sanson Hosiery Mills, Inc. et al., 4 Cir., 189 F.2d 845, 850.
"The test as to a Design Patent offered as a reference, is, the impression that it makes as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
D. Klein & Son, Inc. v. GIANT UMBRELLA COMPANY
...and pleasing impression on the esthetic sense, Forestek v. Knapp-Monarch, 106 F.2d 554 (6th Cir. 1939), E. H. Sheldon & Co. v. Miller Office Supply Co., 188 F.Supp. 67 (S.D. Ohio 1960), and if it is unobvious, when made, to a person having ordinary skill in the field of the questioned art, ......
-
DESIGN, INCORPORATED v. EMERSON COMPANY
...also form a useful function. See Robert W. Brown, Inc. v. DeBell, 243 F.2d 200 (9th Cir. 1957); E. H. Sheldon & Co. v. Miller Office Supply Co., 188 F.Supp. 67 (S.D. Ohio, 1960). In Barofsky, supra, the court answered that argument in the following "This is undoubtedly the law. See Robert W......
-
Flexible Plastics Corp. v. BLACK MOUNTAIN SP. WATER INC.
...preclude patentability. See Robert W. Brown & Co., Inc. v. DeBell, 243 F.2d 200 (9th Cir. 1957); E. H. Sheldon & Co. v. Miller Office Supply Co., Inc., 188 F.Supp. 67 (S.D.Ohio 1960): If a design meets the statutory requirements for a design patent its patentability is not destroyed because......
-
Blumcraft of Pittsburgh v. United States
...years ago in the Gorham case. The test was applied in the case of a design for a table top in 1960. E. H. Sheldon & Co. v. Miller Office Supply Co., Inc., 188 F.Supp. 67, (DC-Ohio, 1960). The issue of infringement of a design patent presents a question of fact for the trier of the facts to ......