Johnson Metal Products Co. v. Lundell-Eckberg Mfg. Co., 244.
Decision Date | 29 July 1938 |
Docket Number | No. 244.,244. |
Citation | 98 F.2d 756 |
Parties | JOHNSON METAL PRODUCTS CO. et al. v. LUNDELL-ECKBERG MFG. CO., Inc. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
D. L. Carlson, of Jamestown, N. Y. , 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.
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:
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-
Reynolds v. Emaus
...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
...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
... ... the company with the agreement of Sabatini to co-operate to obtain permissible renewals for the ... ...