Battery Patents Corporation v. Chicago Cycle S. Co.
| Decision Date | 06 May 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 7087.,7087. |
| Parties | BATTERY PATENTS CORPORATION v. CHICAGO CYCLE SUPPLY CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Russell Wiles, Charles J. Merriam, Horace Dawson, George A. Chritton, and Chritton, Wiles, Davies, Hirschl & Dawson, all of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Albert G. McCaleb, Warren C. Horton, and Arthur Nelson Cornell, all of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
Before TREANOR and KERNER, Circuit Judges, and LINDLEY, District Judge.
Plaintiff appeals from a decree holding invalid for want of invention design patent No. 107,358, to Lewis, December 7, 1937, filed December 28, 1934.
In his application, Lewis illustrated a combined bicycle wheel mud guard and lamp, the former being practically a half circle, and the latter, a streamlined lamp fixed on top of the guard. This combination, he asserted, was a new, original and ornamental design for a combined bicycle guard and lamp. He claimed "the ornamental design for a combined bicycle guard and lamp, substantially as shown." The Board of Appeals upon review sustained the examiner's rejection of the application. Plaintiff then sued in equity in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, as permitted by R.S. § 4915, 35 U.S.C.A. § 63, seeking a decree directing that letters patent issue. The court found that the design did not disclose invention. Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District, in Battery Patents Corp. v. Coe, 68 App.D.C. 61, 93 F.2d 220, reversed, finding that Lewis had achieved invention and directing that the patent issue.
In the present case the District Court found the evidence before it to be "quite different" from that presented in the prior litigation. Judge Igoe expressed the belief that if the evidence submitted had been presented at the original trial, the application would not have been sustained.
It is admitted that mud guards, such as that selected and illustrated by Lewis in his application, were old and that streamlined lamps of the same outward design as that of his prescribed form were known to the art but, also admittedly, Lewis was the first to combine this specific lamp and guard; and it is insisted by plaintiff that his combination, set up on a bicycle wheel and viewed as a whole, demonstrated originality in beauty of design.
Section 4929 of the Statutes, 35 U.S.C.A. § 73, provides that any person who has invented "any new, original, and ornamental design" for an article of manufacture may obtain a patent therefor. The law applicable does not differ from that governing mechanical patents. To entitle an applicant to the benefit of the act, in either case, there must be originality, — exercise of the inventive faculty. In the one, must appear creative novelty and utility; in the other, creative originality in artistry. Mere mechanical skill, whether of the artisan or of the artist, is insufficient. Smith v. Whitman Saddle Co., 148 U.S. 674, 13 S.Ct. 768, 37 L.Ed. 606; Bolte & Weyer Co. v. Knight Light Co., 7 Cir., 180 F. 412. Designs consist of combinations and must be tested by their "over-all esthetic effect." In considering them, the question is not one of mechanical novelty or lack thereof, but one of creative artistry. Bolte & Weyer Co. v. Knight Light Co., 7 Cir., 180 F. 412; Pfeffer v. Western Doll Mfg. Co., 7 Cir., 283 F....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glidden Company v. Zdanok Lurk v. United States
...Hobart Mfg. Co. v. Landers, Frary & Clark, 26 F.Supp. 198, 202, aff'd per curiam, 2 Cir., 107 F.2d 1016; Battery Patents Corp. v. Chicago Cycle Supply Co., 7 Cir., 111 F.2d 861, 863; Reviser's Note, 35 U.S.C. § 144, 35 U.S.C.A. § 144. 47 Naturalization Act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, § 15, 3......
-
Amerock Corporation v. Aubrey Hardware Mfg., Inc.
...artistry. Designs consist of combinations and are to be tested for their "over-all esthetic effect." Battery Patents Corporation v. Chicago Cycle S. Co., 7 Cir., 1940, 111 F.2d 861, 863. In the case at bar, the design under scrutiny was "pleasing to the eye"; it was attractive enough to "ca......
-
Morrison v. Coe, 7583.
...Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Coe, 69 App.D. C. 217, 222, 99 F.2d 986, 991, and cases cited in note 16; Battery Patents Corp. v. Chicago Cycle Supply Co., 7 Cir., 111 F.2d 861, 863; Tropic-Aire, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 8 Cir., 44 F.2d 580, 592, 593, certiorari denied, 282 U.S. 904, 5......
-
Rains v. Cascade Industries, Inc.
...of combinations and are to be tested for their `over-all esthetic effect.'" The same opinion cited Battery Patents Corporation v. Chicago Cycle Supply Co., 111 F.2d 861, 863 (7 Cir. 1940), which held invalid a design for a bicycle lamp and mud guard in combination because the patentee "did ......