Armstrong v. Belding Bros & Co.

Citation172 F. 234
Decision Date06 July 1909
Docket Number1,217.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
PartiesARMSTRONG v. BELDING BROS. & CO.

Livingston Gifford and Ernest Chadwick, for complainant.

Robert B. Honeyman, A. Parker-Smith, and Gross, Hyde & Shipman, for defendant.

PLATT District Judge.

This is the usual patent suit, based on claims 1 and 2 of Schroeder patent, No. 546,251, dated September 10, 1895; the sole claim of the Armstrong patent, No. 523,139, dated July 17, 1894 and claims 1 and 2 of a later Schroeder patent, No. 546,123 dated September 10, 1895. The inventions covered by these patents are said to be capable of conjoint use. They are stated above in the order of their importance, because the date of the invention of the first-named Schroeder patent is stipulated to be as early as January 1, 1894, and the Armstrong and later Schroeder patents stand on the dates of their respective applications, viz., May 18, 1894, and June 11, 1895. For convenience the claims at issue are here set forth.

Schroeder Patent, No. 546,251.

Claim 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.'

Claim 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 fort.'

Armstrong Patent, No. 523,139.

Sole Claim: 'A thread package, consisting of a casing or envelope, inclosing a skein as set forth, said casing being closed at one end within the doubled portion of the skein to prevent the withdrawal of the latter, all substantially as specified.'

Schroeder Patent, No. 546,123.

Claim 1: 'A thread package, comprising a folded body portion an end portion reinforced by folded flaps and further folded within the end of the casing, forming a bearing over which the threads of the skein may be withdrawn from the package, substantially as set forth.'

Claim 2: 'The thread package, comprising the folded body portion and the end portion formed integral with the body portion and reinforced by folded flaps, the said end portion being further folded within the end of the casing to form a bearing over which the threads of the skein may be withdrawn, substantially as set forth.'

The Schroeder patent, 546,251, is entitled to generous treatment. It was the first invention which undertook to preserve and care for individual skeins of embroidery silk. Up to that time the silk had always been packed and sold as shown in Complainant's Exhibit Old Style Package. The invention did what its author said it would do. Tangling and soiling of the skeins were practically done away with; the worker could remove the entire skein, thread by thread, without breaking up the package; color and size could be duplicated at the store, without carrying a sample; and, in general, it was a boon to maker, seller, and user.

It is more than a package or envelope. It is really a machine, with a well-defined mode of operation. The mechanical idea has to do with the removing of thread after thread of the skein without tangling the silk or destroying the envelope. A portion of the package, being left free on one side, can be folded upon itself, and then, after further folding, can be used as a support over which the skein of silk is thrown. The sides of the package are then folded over each other and over the support, thus retaining the skein snugly within the package or casing. The support serves to separate the skein and to furnish a bearing piece over which each individual thread can, after the skein has been cut at the bottom end, be drawn forth and used by the worker.

This invention was a new and useful thing. The attempt to hunt out something which might suggest the idea among envelopes and fly books and embroidery cases is vain and unconvincing. The peculiar characteristics of floss silk make it impossible to wind it upon spools or to run it through holes in cardboard or wood. It is, therefore, evident that nothing in the prior art tended in the remotest degree to shed any light upon the problem which confronted Schroeder and Armstrong at the time of the interference in 1894. The end pull mode of operation upon the silk threads within the inclosing and retaining package is the essence of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Armstrong v. Belding Bros. & Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • May 8, 1922
  • Armstrong v. Belding Bros. & Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • February 4, 1924
    ...holder.' Very full statements of meritorious novelty in this invention are found in our previous opinion and that of the court below. 172 F. 234. For present purposes it enough to emphasize the holding, made so long ago, that, while skeins of thread or silk were old and well-known articles ......

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