Abbott v. Barrentine Manufacturing Company, GC6320.
| Decision Date | 31 March 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. GC6320.,GC6320. |
| Citation | 255 F. Supp. 890 |
| Parties | Paul D. ABBOTT, Plaintiff, v. BARRENTINE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Inc. and Tom A. Barrentine, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
A. Yates Dowell and A. Yates Dowell, Jr., Washington, D. C., Freeland & Gafford, Oxford, Miss., for plaintiff.
H. Talbot Odom, Odom, Odom & Pittman, Greenwood, Miss., Jennings, Carter & Thompson, Birmingham, Ala., for defendant.
Plaintiff, Paul D. Abbott, brought this suit against defendants, Barrentine Manufacturing Company, Incorporated, and Tom A. Barrentine, for infringement of plaintiff's United States Patent No. 3,031,208 and for defendants' unfair competition with plaintiff. Defendants answered, denying validity of the patent, denying infringement and denying unfair competition. Trial was to the court and the case has been submitted on briefs of the parties.
1) Plaintiff is a resident of Blytheville, Arkansas, and is the owner of the patent in suit which was issued to him on April 24, 1962, upon an application filed October 25, 1960. Defendant, Barrentine Manufacturing Company, Incorporated, is a Mississippi corporation located in Greenwood, Mississippi, and defendant, Tom A. Barrentine, is the principal stockholder, president and dominant individual of this corporation.
2) In the prosecution of the application for this patent before the United States Patent Office, the petition was originally assigned to Examiner L. J. Blackmar in Division One. There were five claims in the application, and on the first action the examiner allowed Claim 1 and rejected Claims 2 through 5. In plaintiff's response of October 24, 1961, the specification was amended to correct informalities, Claims 2, 3, and 4 were amended and a new Claim 6 was added. The new Claim 6 was similar in scope to Claim 1, but somewhat broader. The rejections of Claims 2, 3, 4 and 5 were argued on the basis that there was no suggestion anywhere in the prior art of combining the references in a manner suggested by the examiner and that even if such a combination were made, the resulting structure did not perform the same function as plaintiff's device.
3) On the next action, the application had been transferred to Division 47 and assigned to Examiner R. C. Podwil who apparently found no other pertinent references, and Claims 1, 2, and 6 were allowed, but Claims 3, 4, and 5 were again rejected on February 28, 1962. After an interview with both examiners, Claims 3 to 5 inclusive were rewritten as Claims 7 and 8. Claims 3 through 5 had been rejected as unpatentable over the British patent to Wolseley 647,622 and the British patent to Bruce 780,670. In plaintiff's arguments against both the Wolseley and Bruce patents, no mention was made of plaintiff's lift unit as being an important element necessary to the operation of the device which neither of the British references disclosed. As a result of the interview, plaintiff's amendments, Claims 7 and 8, were allowed and the application subsequently issued as the patent now in suit. The application was examined by three different examiners in two different divisions of the United States Patent Office, and it must be assumed that they examined the most pertinent prior art. In addition to the mentioned British patents, three United States patents were relied upon. They are:
Toland 2,611,304
Simpson 2,693,965
Orelind 2,779,260
4) At the time of plaintiff's invention, there were various makes, models and sizes of agricultural implements and of tractors or propelling vehicles. The manner of connecting an agricultural implement to a propelling vehicle had reached a degree of development well known to those working in that field, but no device had been provided with which agricultural implements having different attaching means could be connected to tractors. Hitch devices then in use were known as one-point hitch, two-point hitch or three-point hitch. These three types of hitches may be described as follows:
Obviously, a two-point hitch has one or more points of connection, and a three-point hitch has one or more points of connection or two or more points of connection. However, a three-point hitch of the type disclosed by the prior art could not accommodate what is known to the trade as a two-point hitch nor could it normally accommodate a one-point hitch. Each type of hitch has its own particular type of connection, and before plaintiff's invention, the different types were not compatible with each other. Thus, a tractor with a two-point hitch could accommodate implements having two-point connections only and was useless for attaching and propelling implements having a one-point connection or a three-point connection. The same is true of tractors having a three-point connection which could accommodate implements having a three-point connection only.
5) The prior art is replete with modifications and improvements of each of these basic hitches. However, the prior art did not include an apparatus by which any implement, regardless of whether it is equipped with a one, two, or three-point hitch could be connected to a single propelling vehicle. It was such a combination of elements, constituting a universal hitch, that plaintiff invented and as a result applied for and was granted the patent in suit.
6) Said patent which was granted for plaintiff's "universal tractor hitch", in addition to the specific imbodiment of his invention which was disclosed therein, contained five claims numbered 1 through 5 inclusive. During the course of the trial, any reliance on Claim 1 was eliminated by stipulation. Thus, this court must look to the language of Claims 2, 3, 4, and 5 to determine whether defendants have infringed this patent, if it is found to be valid.
7) In addition to the patents cited by the Patent Office, defendants rely upon several other prior art patents as anticipatory of plaintiff's device. These additional references are as follows:
Lindeman 2,616,349
Wetzel 2,753,784
Harris 2,780,160
Altgelt 2,822,739
Clarke 2,865,657
Tapp 2,918,131
Heberlein 3,029,880
British
Patent 820,063
French
Patent 1,196,633
The Lindeman patent is a modified two-point hitch in which a tool bar is clamped to the draft arms of a tractor so that when the draft arms are raised, the tool bar and the implement thereon will be raised.
8) The Wetzel patent is a modified type of three-point hitch having a lift mechanism similar to plaintiff's original three-point hitch and plaintiff's original universal hitch on which he obtained a patent.
9) The patent to Harris is a three-point tool adapter for tractors which discloses a modified method and apparatus for controlling the position of the draft arms so that a three-point type of implement or tool can be attached thereto and operated therefrom.
10) The Altgelt patent is a modified type of three-point hitch which includes a drawbar disposed between the outer free ends of the draft arms and such drawbar is adapted to slideably receive a socket mounted on the implement, such socket being the full equivalent of the two lower points of a three-point hitch. The implement is provided with an upper section having a V-shaped notch to which a link corresponding to the adjustable member or turnbuckle of a three-point hitch is connected.
11) The Clarke patent is a modified three-point hitch in which the implement is pivotally connected to the outer free ends of the draft arms and an adjustable member connects the tractor with an A-frame carried on the implement.
12) The Tapp patent is a three-point hitch having draft arms at opposite sides of the tractor and an intermediate adjustable member at a high elevation connected to an A-frame on the implement.
13) The Heberlein patent is a two-point hitch adapter for a tractor lift whereby a tractor having a three-point hitch can be converted to a two-point hitch by removing the lower draft arms and substituting other draft arms to which an adjustable sleeve has been attached and which is adapted to receive the prongs of a two-point or fast hitch. After the modification or substitution has been made, the hitch is strictly a two-point hitch and cannot be used to connect an implement having three connecting points unless the hitch is converted back to a three-point hitch.
14) British Patent 820,063 is a conventional two-point or fast hitch. This patent was applied for in the name of the International Harvester Company and is similar to their two-point...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Antici v. KBH CORPORATION
...315 F.2d 23 (5 Cir. 1963); Southern Saw Service v. Pittsburgh-Erie Saw Corp., 239 F.2d 339 (5 Cir. 1957); Abbott v. Barrentine Mfg. Co., Inc., 255 F. Supp. 890 (N.D.Miss.1965). 20 Thurber Corp. v. Fairchild Motor Corp., 269 F.2d 841 (5 Cir. 21 Up-right, Inc. v. Safway Products, Inc., 315 F.......
-
Maschinenfabrik Rieter AG v. Greenwood Mills
...cases. And whether defendants had any intention to infringe plaintiff's patent is immaterial. citing cases." Abbott v. Barrentine Mfg. Co., 255 F. Supp. 890, 899 (N.D.Miss.1966). The foregoing quotations are particularly applicable to the infringement issues before this Court where it was p......
-
Shields v. Halliburton Co., Civ. A. No. 78-0065.
...not followed exactly, "so long as the substance of the invention is appropriated by the accused device." Abbott v. Barrentine Manufacturing Company, 255 F.Supp. 890 (N.D.Miss.1965). The Court finds that Claims 1 and 12 of United States Letters Patent No. RE 28,232 have been singularly and j......
-
Hairline Creations, Inc. v. Kefalas
... ... is used in association with the business of manufacturing and servicing custom hairpieces for men. Kefalas responded ... 536, 538 (E.D.N.C.1967); Abbott v. Barrentine Manufacturing ... Page 659 ... Co., 255 ... ...