Belden v. Air Control Products

• Decision Date: 24 August 1956
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 2302.
• Citation: 144 F. Supp. 248
• Parties: Donald A. BELDEN, Arthur E. Swoboda, Joseph A. Bartole, Merlin C. Belden, Delbert B. Belden d/b/a Louver Manufacturing & Supply Company, Plaintiffs, v. AIR CONTROL PRODUCTS, Inc., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

144 F. Supp. 248

Donald A. BELDEN, Arthur E. Swoboda, Joseph A. Bartole, Merlin C. Belden, Delbert B. Belden d/b/a Louver Manufacturing & Supply Company, Plaintiffs, v. AIR CONTROL PRODUCTS, Inc., Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 2302.

United States District Court W. D. Michigan, S. D.

August 24, 1956.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Oscar W. Giese, Washington, D. C., and Peter P. Price, Grand Rapids, Mich., for plaintiffs.

Earl & Webb, Otis A. Earl and Austin A. Webb, Kalamazoo, Mich., and Varnum, Riddering, Wierengo & Christenson and Carl J. Riddering, Grand Rapids, Mich., for defendant.

STARR, Chief Judge.

The plaintiffs as assignees and owners of United States Letters Patent No. 2,458,134 issued January 4, 1949, for an adjustable ventilator, filed complaint alleging infringement by the defendant, a Michigan corporation. They asked for an injunction against further infringement and for damages and costs of suit. The defendant answered, alleging invalidity of patent because of prior art anticipation and lack of invention, and denying infringement. Prior to trial the defendant's motion for a summary judgment was denied; the plaintiffs' claim of unfair competition was withdrawn; and it was agreed that only claims 1 and 3 of the patent were alleged to be infringed.

In support of its claim of invalidity of patent because of prior art anticipation and lack of invention, defendant cites the following patents and publications: Dillon 569,550 issued October 13, 1896; Townsend 903,340 issued November 10, 1908; Derr 930,743 issued August 10, 1909; Schueler 1,217,225 issued February 27, 1917; Hoal 1,657,625 issued January 31, 1928; Haugh 2,194,388 issued March 19, 1940; Jones 2,216,413 issued October 1, 1940; Siebenlist 2,340,570 issued February 1, 1944; Ferguson 2,389,970 issued November 27, 1945; Cutshall, design 134,337 issued November 17, 1942; Sweet's catalog, 1937, section 8, pages 32, 33, and 34; American Sheet Metal Works catalog entitled, "Description, Price List and Drafting Room Information Hoal's Leak-Proof Louvers Patented"; H. H. W. Bergmann & Co. bulletin, "Copyright, 1937."

The ventilator described in plaintiffs' patent, and the ventilator now manufactured by plaintiffs which differs from the patent specifications as to the apex and louver connections, and defendant's accused ventilator are all designed to be fabricated of sheet metal and all embody the idea of an adjustable inverted V-shaped frame with expansible and contractible downwardly-inclined slats or so-called louvers, horizontally mounted in spaced parallel relation in the frame. All of these ventilators are designed and adapted for installation in the peak of the roof gable of a house or other building, and all are adjustable in shape to accommodate roof gables of varying pitches. In all of said ventilators the louvers are inclined outwardly and downwardly to permit air flow and to prevent rain and other forms of precipitation from entering through the ventilator. Plaintiffs' patent contains three claims reading as follows:¹

"1. A ventilator of the class described comprising an inverted V-frame made up of a pair of complemental channel-shaped members, corresponding ends of said members at one end of said V-frame being hingedly connected together, a plurality of ventilating louvers assembled between said frame members, said louvers being individually extensible and contractible and hingedly connected at their outer ends to the frame members.

"2. A ventilator of the class described comprising a frame made up of a pair of diverging channel-shaped members, the inner ends of said members being hingedly connected together, and louvers, each louver being made up of telescopically connected sections, the outer ends of the sections having laterally bent flanges, said frame members being provided with hinge pins, and said flanges being hingedly mounted on said pins.

"3. A louver-type attic ventilator of general triangular form adapted for use in an attic roof construction having downwardly and outwardly pitched roof members comprising an inverted V-frame embodying a pair of duplicate frame members hingedly connected, one to the other, at corresponding ends and thus adapted to be swung toward and from each other for adjustment purposes, a multiple louver ventilating panel embodying longitudinally extensible and retractible louvers, and means hingedly connecting the outer ends of said louvers with said frame members, whereby the latter are lengthened or shortened as the frame members are spread apart or moved toward one another."

It may be noted that the above claims of plaintiffs' patent describe the channel-shaped side members of the V-frame as being "hingedly connected together" at their apex, and that the extensible and contractible ventilating louvers assembled between the frame members are described as being "hingedly connected" at their outer ends to the frame members. The patent drawings indicate that the hinged connection of the side members at their apex is by a common type of butt hinge such as is used to hang a door. The specifications provide that the louvers assembled in the V-frame comprise telescopically-connected sections provided at their outer ends with laterally directed wing-like flanges terminating in suitably bent hinges and attaching knuckles, and that the knuckles are "hingedly" mounted on cross pins in the channel sections of the side members. However, it may be noted that in the ventilators now manufactured and sold by the plaintiffs the hinge connection of the side members at their apex, and the hinge connection of the louvers to the side members, are substantially different from the hinge connections described in the specifications of the patent. That is, the drawings and specifications indicate that the side frame members are joined at their apex by a common type of butt hinge and that the ends of the louvers are attached to the side members by a pin extending through the knuckle-formed end of the louver and the side members, while in the ventilators now manufactured by plaintiffs the side members are connected at their apex by a metal strap integral with, and extending from, one side member over the apex to the other side member and secured to the other member by a rivet, and the louvers are attached to the side members by staples.

The defendant's accused ventilator comprises adjustable side frame members arranged in an inverted V-shape with a plurality of telescopically-formed louvers extending horizontally between and flexibly connected to the side members. The upper ends of the side frame members in defendant's structure are not connected in any manner, but meet in close proximity and may be moved into abutting relationship so that the ventilator may be adjustably shaped into any desired triangular form. The outer ends of the louvers in defendant's structure are formed into triangular flanges with outwardly bent tabs which are passed through horizontal slots in the side members and bent over to connect the louvers to the side members. It is significant that in defendant's structure there is no hinge, rivet or mechanical connection whatever between the side frame members at their apex and no hinge connection between the louvers and side members. It is clear that the manner in which the side frame members of defendant's structure meet at their apex and in which the louvers of defendant's structure are connected to the side members is substantially different from the hinged connections described in the plaintiffs' patent.

The questions presented for determination by the court are: (1) Is the plaintiffs' patent No. 2,458,134 valid? and (2) if valid, are claims 1 and 3 infringed? It may be noted that plaintiffs in effect admit that none of the elements and parts of the ventilator described in their patent claims and specifications or embodied in the type of ventilator which they manufacture represent invention. They contend that the combination and structural arrangement of the group of known elements and parts create patentability and rely entirely upon the presumption of validity arising from the issuance of their patent. In the briefs plaintiffs state:

"The patentee does not claim to have invented (1) the use of a hinge to articulate a joint; (2) the idea of making attic ventilators triangular in shape; (3) the idea of mounting an attic ventilator at the peak of the gable; (4) the idea of providing ventilation for attic spaces; or (5) the use of telescoping louvers.

"Plaintiffs' case for validity is based upon (1) the statutory presumption; (2) that the invention involves a structural organization and an interrelationship of the component parts which was unknown before the invention and which was immediately recognized as solving a difficult problem and as such was quickly and widely adopted by the trade and to a great extent displaced other types of gable mounted, attic ventilators."

"The prior art did teach that fixed triangular ventilators of static shape and dimension were known. It also, separately, taught the structure of louvers of telescopic construction. While the prior art does not specifically show that the bringing together of the ends of two members to form a `V' in a structural relationship permitting the members to rotate about the point of juncture will create a hinge, it is conceded that this was common knowledge."

"Plaintiffs' primary case on validity exists by reason of a statutory presumption specifically created by section 282 of the Patent Act of 1952."

The Patent Act of 1952, 35 U.S. C.A. § 1 et seq., did not change the basic tests for determining patentability, and the courts must determine, within the meaning of the statute conferring patent monopoly, whether there is invention and patentability. In General Motors Corp. v. Estate Stove Co., 6 Cir., 203 F.2d 912 (on rehearing), the court held that the Patent Act of 1952 neither raised nor lowered the standard of invention. See Hughes v. Salem...