Allied Stamping Co. v. Standard Electric E. Corp.

• Decision Date: 21 March 1932
• Docket Number: No. 5584.,5584.
• Parties: ALLIED METAL STAMPING CO., Inc., v. STANDARD ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT CORPORATION.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

57 F.2d 296 (1932)

ALLIED METAL STAMPING CO., Inc., v. STANDARD ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT CORPORATION.

No. 5584.

District Court, E. D. New York.

March 21, 1932.

Darby & Darby, of New York City (Walter A. Darby and Sidney E. Gottschall, both of New York City, and George P. Kimmel, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for plaintiff.

Albert T. Scharps, of New York City, for defendant.

CAMPBELL, District Judge.

This is an action in equity in which the plaintiff seeks relief against the defendant by injunction and damages for the alleged infringement of patent No. 1,611,499, issued by the United States Patent Office to Herman F. Vaughn and Raymond R. Terpening, for electrical installation assemblage and conductor clamp, granted December 21, 1926, which patent was thereafter duly assigned to the plaintiff, which is the lawful owner thereof.

Defendant has interposed an answer setting up the defenses of invalidity and noninfringement, and also a counterclaim, which defense of counterclaim was dismissed on motion prior to the trial, and that decision is binding on this court.

The plaintiff is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of New Jersey.

The defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Delaware.

The problem which the patentees were called upon to solve and the objects of their invention are clearly set forth in the specification of the patent in suit, as follows:

"In electrical construction work, when clamping conductors to switch boxes, outlet boxes, and other receptacles, it is customary to pass said conductors through relatively large openings in the receptacle and secure them by means of a screw-operated clamp within the receptacle. The form of clamp heretofore employed leaves gaps between the conductors and the edge walls of the openings through which they pass, which gaps are contrary to regulations covering electrical installation, and constitute a dangerous fire hazard. It is the principal object of our invention to provide a new and improved electrical installation assemblage including a clamp which is so constructed as to close the gaps of the openings, heretofore left by the form of clamp previously employed.

"Another object of the invention is to provide a clamp which will not only effectively close the portion of the knockout hole not occupied by the conductor armor, but which may be used to effectively grip and hold any of the several sizes of flexible metallic armored cables, as well as the non-metallic sheathed cables and the flexible tubings now in use.

"Other objects are to provide a combined cable clamp and knockout hole closure of almost universal application to the standard switch and outlet boxes, which may be manufactured at small cost, which may be easily and quickly installed, and which will be strong and highly effective in use."

There was evidence received on the trial that fires had been caused by sparks from the switch boxes escaping through the openings left in the boxes where the conductor cables entered the box. The patent in suit is simple and easily understandable, and the embodiment shown in the patent and drawings comprises a receptacle 5, which may be of the type of any well-known cabinet, switch boxes, outlet boxes, or other inclosures or receptacles commonly used in electric installation.

This receptacle is formed with the usual continuous walled openings or knockout holes 6, through which the conductors 7 and their protecting armor 8 pass, and in which they are held by the clamping member 9. This clamping member comprises two arched clamping portions 10, to engage the armors 8 of the conductors 7. The arched clamping portions 10 are integrally connected by a connecting portion 11, having an opening 12, which receives a clamping screw 13, slidably engaged by threading or the like, with an opening in the wall of the receptacle which is at right angles to the wall in which the knockout holes 6 are formed.

The clamping member 9 is disposed adjacent to the inner side of one wall of the receptacle 5, and its inner edge, in the clamping portion 10, is preferably provided with inwardly stamped lugs 14, to anti-slippingly engage the armors 8, of the conductors 7. The outer edge of the clamping member 9 is provided with an integral plate 15, in a plane at right angles to that of the connecting portion 11; the plate 15 being adapted to slidably engage the inner side of the receptacle wall.

The portions 10, 11, and 15 strengthen each other and provide a strong clamp with the use of the minimum amount of metal; and the bearing of the stamping portions 10 on the cables is sufficient to prevent the tilting of the plate 15 away from the wall of the receptacle when the screw 13 is tightened; thus the plate 15 covers the gaps which would otherwise exist between the conductor armors and the edges of the opening 6, and the fire hazard is reduced.

The defendant's contention that the patent in suit is invalid, because the disclosure thereof is misleading and incorrect as to the operation and function of the clamp and clamp plate 15, is not sustained.

The clamp of the patent does function and perform in exactly the manner described in the specification, and the description and drawing are not misleading or incorrect as to its operation.

The drawings and specifications of the patent in suit describe and show a clamp which will accomplish the expressed objects of the patent in suit. The clamp of the patent in suit functions to grip and hold the several sizes of cable mentioned in the patent, and in the manner described, and the upstanding plate 15 of the clamp also closes the gaps or openings between the conductors and the edge walls of the openings through which the conductors pass.

I do not understand how the clamp, when screwed down on the conductor to grip the same, moves forwardly and inwardly so that the plate thereof moves slightly away from the inside box wall, in view of the fact that the rigid screw 13 does not pass through a slot in the clamp but through a hole accommodated thereto, and that such translation would be impossible without bending the screw; but, even if the upstanding plate be so moved, it is immaterial, as, whatever position it ultimately assumes, it will still remain a closure for the holes.

Whether plate 15 be called a baffle, plate, or closure is immaterial, as it effectively functions to block off or close the holes against sparks passing therethrough, when the clamp is screwed down in clamping position.

In determining the meaning of the word "close" as used in the patent in suit, it must be considered with reference to the objects of the patent. Liquid Carbonic Co. v. Gilchrist (C. C. A.) 253 F. 54; Imperial Machine & Foundry Corp. v. American Machinery Co. (D. C.) 276 F. 436.

The objects of the patent in suit are attainable by the structure disclosed in the patent in suit, and that structure may be satisfactorily made and used by any person skilled in the art.

The defendant's contention that the patent in suit is invalid because the disclosure thereof does not show an operative device, when used with the flexible armored cable illustrated to form a closure of the character described and claimed, requires but little further consideration in view of what I have already said on the question of apertures.

However, even if the plate 15 may or may not be positioned slightly away from the wall of the box, when the flexible cable is clamped down, does not deprive it of the function of serving to close the apertures where they are unoccupied by the conductors.

The contention of the defendant that the patent is void because the patentees added material new matter to their specification, during the prosecution thereof in the Patent Office, without filing a supplemental oath, is not sustained.

The first specification was brief and concise and completely disclosed the invention, and to any one skilled in the art would have taught all that the patent now teaches.

All of the amendments which were allowed were clearly within the scope of the original specification, and the original specification and drawings support the claims finally made, and no supplemental oath was required. Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Consolidated Car Heating Co. (C. C. A.) 67 F. 121; Westinghouse E. & Mfg. Co. v. Metropolitan E. Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.) 290 F. 661.

The further contention of the defendant that the patent in suit is invalid, in that there is omitted therefrom an essential and material part, namely, the brass ferrule which is shown in the drawing at Fig. 3, but is unmarked and not described, is not sustained.

The use of the brass ferrule is not necessary to practice the invention, as the patented structure would be operative without it.

By following the specification as it reads, without addition or subtraction, a person skilled in the art could make and use the invention, and this is what the law requires.

The omission to mention the unnecessary ferrule in the specification, even though it might be indicated in the drawing, is not a fatal defect. Curtis on Patents, ß 248; Sewall v. Jones, 91 U. S. 171, 185, 186, 23 L. Ed. 275; Robinson on Patents, vol. 2, ß 491.

Defendant offered in evidence fifteen United States patents, eleven of which are relied upon as anticipations of the patent in suit, and four to show the art. The defendant offered no testimony concerning these patents, but I will briefly review the same.

No. 700,340, to Hubert Krantz, for electrical outlet box, granted May 20, 1902. The patent in suit was issued over this patent, which was cited by the Patent Office. This patent could not be substituted for the patent in suit.

In Krantz, the side wall is cut away, and, when the conductors are introduced in the passage C, the clamp B and plate · are fitted in place. If the conductors are the exact size or smaller than the passage C, the plate · exactly fills the cutaway of the side wall. If the conductors are larger than the...