Johnson Metal Products Co. v. Lundell-Eckberg Mfg. Co., 244.

Decision Date29 July 1938
Docket NumberNo. 244.,244.
Citation98 F.2d 756
PartiesJOHNSON METAL PRODUCTS CO. et al. v. LUNDELL-ECKBERG MFG. CO., Inc.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

D. L. Carlson, of Jamestown, N. Y. (Drury W. Cooper, of New York City, J. William Ellis, of Buffalo, N. Y., and Ernest D. Given, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

E. T. Bean, of Buffalo, N. Y. (H. C. Lord, of Erie, Pa., and W. J. Belknap, of Detroit, Mich., of counsel), for complainants-appellees.

Before MANTON, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.

AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is concerned with two U. S. Patents to Johnson, No. 1,805,403 of which Claim 29, and No. 1,841,187 of which Claims 12 and 13 were held valid and infringed by the defendant. The subject matter of the patents has to do with windows of the kind having sashes or ventilators which are pivoted or hinged on the window frame as distinguished from windows in which the sashes or ventilators are mounted to slide up and down in the window frame. Windows having such pivoted or hinged sashes are known as casement windows. They have, as the art shows, been constructed in various ways of both wood and metal. Many of them have some mechanism comprising a member which can be pushed and pulled by hand to open and close the sashes. It is variously referred to as actuator, or operator, or stay bar.

The only claim of U. S. Patent No. 1,805,403 which was sustained by the trial judge is Claim 29 which reads as follows:

"29. A casement window comprising a skeleton metal frame, an out-swinging sash on the frame, a frame forming a stop for the sash, a window lock mounted on the frame and directly engaging an immediately adjacent part of the free edge of the sash, said lock having a handle, an actuator secured to the sash and mounted on the frame, said frame, sash, lock and actuator being adapted to form a standardized fabricated self-contained metal unit insertible into a window opening and with the lock and actuator operable from inside the window, and a screen having a frame insertible into and from the inside of a wall opening and mounted on the room face of the frame closely adjacent to the sash when closed, said lock and actuator being operable without opening the screen."

Claims held invalid in the court below, which separately contained the elements which appear together in Claim 29, are the following:

Claim 1 was for a casement window assembly unit having a single sash and Claim 2 a plurality of sashes, outswinging on the frame with a window lock mounted on the frame and operated from the inside of the window. The essentials of this structure were shown in the Wheeler installation and the Truscon casement windows illustrated in the record which were prior to Johnson's invention. It does not include a screen. Claim 9 was for a casement window assembly insertible as a unit into a wall opening, having an outswinging sash on the frame and having means within the opening for securing the sash from inside the frame. This claim provides for a screen having a frame insertible from inside the wall opening and devices on the frame securing the screen with relation to the frame and means. It was interpreted by the court as disclosing no actuator for opening and closing the sash without opening the screen. Even if this be so, the claim does include a window assembly with an outswinging sash on the frame, means inside the frame for securing the sash and a screen evidently not slidable but positioned on the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Reynolds v. Emaus
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • December 8, 1949
    ...the same or an analogous art. Paine & Williams Co. v. Baldwin Rubber Co., 6 Cir., 113 F.2d 840, 844. In Johnson Metal Products Co. v. Lundell-Eckberg Mfg. Co., 2 Cir., 98 F.2d 756, 758, it was held that substitution of metal for wood was not invention. See 1 Walker on Patents, Deller's Ed.,......
  • Tampax, Inc. v. Personal Products Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • May 10, 1941
    ...was a mere substitution of material from which no new or unexpected result flowed and was not invention. Johnson Metal Products Co. v. Lundell-Eckberg Mfg. Co., 2 Cir., 98 F.2d 756, 758; Aero Neck-Band & Collar Co., Inc., et al. v. Beaver Mfg. Co., Inc., 2 Cir., 97 F.2d 363, 365; Minton Mfg......
  • Sabatini v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • August 4, 1938
    ... ... the company with the agreement of Sabatini to co-operate to obtain permissible renewals for the ... ...

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