Automatic Pencil Sharpener Co. v. Stewart Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 02 January 1918
• Docket Number: 2493.
• Citation: 249 F. 52
• Parties: AUTOMATIC PENCIL SHARPENER CO. v. STEWART MFG. CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

249 F. 52

AUTOMATIC PENCIL SHARPENER CO. v. STEWART MFG. CO. et al.

No. 2493.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

January 2, 1918

1. In a pencil sharpener, the combination of the frame comprising the disks 9 and 10 with the block 11 connecting the same bearings at opposite ends of the frame, a crank for rotating the same, bearings 19 and 20 in the said disks at an angle to the disks, the shaft 18 fitted to the said bearings, the sharpening cylinder 16 carried by the said shaft and gearing arranged and operated to rotate the sharpening cylinder when the frame is turned by the crank.'

3. In a pencil sharpener, the combination of the frame comprising the disks 9 and 10 with the block 11 connecting the same, a casing provided with bearings for the opposite ends of the frame and having a box 48 to receive the shavings, a crank for rotating the frame in the casing, bearings 19 and 20 in the said disks at an angle to the axis of the disks, the shaft 18 fitted to the said bearings, the sharpening cylinder 16 carried by said shaft and gearing arranged and operated to rotate the sharpening cylinder when the frame is turned by the hand crank.'

Claims 8 and 10 of the Baines patent, No. 839,806, issued January 1 1907, read as follows:

8. In a pencil-sharpening machine a cutter cylindrical in form and having helically arranged cutting edges, a frame mounted to rotate in a stand or casing and carrying the cutter at an angle with the axis about which said frame rotates, a guide for the pencil in the axis of said frame, an adjustable stop in the frame to limit the longitudinal movement of the pencil, and means to rotate the said cutter and give it a planetary motion.'

10. In a pencil-sharpening machine the combination of a rotary device provided with helically arranged cutting edges, means for imparting both a rotary and planetary motion thereto, and of an adjustable stop carried by the frame to limit the longitudinal movement of the pencil.'

From a decree dismissing appellant's bill to enjoin future infringement of Webster patents, No. 640,846 and No. 819,104 and Baines patent, No. 839,906, for pencil sharpeners, and for damages arising out of past infringements, and also for an injunction against alleged unfair trade competition with relation to appellant's registered trade-mark 'Junior' for pencil sharpeners, this appeal is taken. Claims 4 and 5 of the Webster patent No. 640,846, dated January 9, 1900, read as follows:

The foregoing are the only claims involved in this suit. Defenses are noninfringement and invalidity.

Henry M. Huxley, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.

Chas. S. Burton, of Chicago, Ill., for appellees.

Before BAKER, ALSCHULER, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.

EVAN A EVANS, Circuit Judge (after stating the fact as above).

Webster First Patent, No. 640,846.-- Of the nine elements which comprise the sharpener defined in claim 4, quoted above, the element described as 'a cutter provided with spiral blades' is claimed to be unique, and when used in the combination set forth in this claim constitutes the basis for one of the contributions which Webster made to this art. The patentee emphasized this element in his specifications by saying:

'On the free end of the shaft I mount a cutter which in shape is a frustum of a cone and is provided with a plurality of spiral blades and the block (16) is provided on the side adjacent to the cutter with a conical shaped groove, which is adapted to receive the end of a pencil and sustain and direct the same against the cutter, as will be readily understood by an inspection of the drawings. * * * It will be observed that the blades on the cutter are made spiral and so disposed that as the cutter is rotated the cutting will be from the point of the pencil backward, thereby giving a fine, long point, without breaking the lead.'

The block and the mechanism for rotating the cutter and the block about the pencil supply the means for utilizing the spiral bladed cutter. The advantages of providing a cutter so that each sharpening spiral blade performs a progressive shaving action, beginning at the point of the lead and moving backward, over a cutter that scrapes like a file, is so obvious that, in the absence of any disclosure in the prior art, invention is apparent. Appellant produced a pencil sharpener which for the first time sharpened the pencil from the point back. This machine, by means of the spiral blades, cut thin shavings along the wood and avoided the difficulties that were met in case a file were used.

Appellees, however, contend that the prior art, represented by two patents, one to Rice, No. 230,338, granted July 28, 1880, and one to Hoffman, No. 291,597, granted January 7, 1884, anticipated appellant's invention. The Hoffman patent is but an improvement of the Rice patent. Hoffman, in his specifications, says:

'My improvement has been designed with special reference to the needs of the pencil sharpener described in letters patent No. 230,338, * * * and it is in this connection that I have illustrated it in the accompanying drawings, * * * and parts thus far described are substantially the same in construction and operation as those described in

...