Armstrong v. Belding Bros. & Co.

• Decision Date: 09 November 1909
• Docket Number: 158.
• Citation: 174 F. 410
• Parties: ARMSTRONG v. BELDING BROS. & CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

174 F. 410

ARMSTRONG v. BELDING BROS. & CO.

No. 158.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

November 9, 1909

Robert B. Honeyman and A. Parker Smith, for appellant.

Livingston Gifford and Ernest Chadwick, for appellee.

Before LACOMBE, COXE, and WARD, Circuit Judges.

LACOMBE Circuit Judge.

The invention is designed more especially for what are generally known as 'embroidery silks,' which easily become tangled and need to be protected, not only from dust, but also from exposure to light, which tends to fade their delicate colors. The two claims of the first patent read:

'1. A thread package, consisting of a folded casing embracing the skein, the said casing being provided with a bearing piece, folded upon itself, the bight of the fold forming a bearing for the skein and a partition between the sides of the skein, the said folded bearing piece being permanently attached to one only of the opposite sides of the casing substantially as set forth.'

'2. A thread package, consisting of a folded casing for embracing the skein, one of the folded parts of the casing located between the walls of the casing being further folded, the bearing edge of the fold extending transversely to the longitudinal direction of the skein and forming a partition between the sides of the skein, substantially as set forth.'

Examination of the record induces entire concurrence in Judge Platt's conclusion that Schroeder is entitled to a generous treatment of his patent, which was the first invention that undertook to preserve and care for individual skeins of embroidery silk: that tangling and soiling of the skeins were practically done away with, the worker could remove the entire skein, thread by thread, by drawing it over the bearing piece by an end pull, without breaking up the package; color and size be duplicated at the store without carrying a sample; and that it was 'a boon to maker seller, and user.' The argument in this court was concerned mainly with infringement. Defendant has one less folded strip in his casing, and the convolutions of the projection of paper which is folded into his bearing piece are not exactly the same as those of Schroeder. A long argument has been made as to the effect of these differences. But examination of the actual thing which defendant makes, and which is not modeled upon or conformed to any structure prior to Schroeder's, shows that it is covered specifically by the language of the claims. This was demonstrated very effectively upon the argument by separating the bearing piece of each thread holder from the rest of the holder by the use of the scissors. The pieces thus cut off were each 'folded upon itself.' The bight of each formed a bearing for the skein and a partition between the sides of the skein. The 'partition' of the structure made in accordance with the drawings of the patent was longer than defendant's partition; but the latter acted to keep the two sides or limbs of the skein separated from each other at the loop or uncut end of the skein, which is the location where according to the specifications it is particularly important to have a partition. The specification states that the core (partition) should...