BF Goodrich Company v. United States Rubber Co., 7392.
| Decision Date | 16 May 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 7392.,7392. |
| Citation | 244 F.2d 468 |
| Parties | The B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES RUBBER COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Stephen H. Philbin, New York City (Semmes, Bowen & Semmes, Baltimore, Md., William K. Kerr, New York City, and R. G. Jeter, Akron, Ohio, on brief) for appellant.
Theodore S. Kenyon, New York City (Venable, Baetjer & Howard, Baltimore, Md., Malvin R. Mandelbaum, Kenyon & Kenyon, Paul H. Arthur, Frederick W. Wood, Irwin M. Lewis, and Arthur, Dry & Dole, New York City, on brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and SOBELOFF, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a judgment for defendant in an action brought by the B. F. Goodrich Company against the United States Rubber Company for infringement of U. S. Patent No. 2,587,470 relating to a tubeless tire for automobiles. The patent was issued to one Herzegh, an employee of Goodrich, in 1952 on an application filed in 1946. The District Judge has filed a comprehensive opinion in which the facts are carefully and correctly set forth and analyzed and the prior art is reviewed at length. He held that the patent was invalid for lack of invention over the prior art, that its claims were void for indefiniteness and that, even if valid, it was not infringed. B. F. Goodrich Co. v. United States Rubber Co., D.C.Md., 147 F.Supp. 40. As we are of opinion that he was correct in holding the patent invalid for lack of invention over the prior art, we shall confine our discussion to that point.
The patent relates to a tubeless tire for automobiles having circumferentially continuous ribs molded integrally with the bead portions, so that they will be forced by the pressure of the air inside the tire into sealing engagement with the flanges of the metal rim of the wheel, and a lining composed of a "substantially impervious" butyl type rubber composition extending from the bead on one side of the tire to the bead on the other side but terminating short of the ribs. The problem was to seal the tire at its connection with the flanges of the rim in such way as to prevent the escape of air from within and to give it a type of lining which would prevent air penetrating its carcass. This was accomplished by using the pressure of the air inside the tire to press the ribs molded on the heel against the flanges of the rim and by lining the carcass with an impervious "butyl type" rubber composition. The lining was stopped short of the ribs because the butyl type rubber of the lining was not tough enough to stand the sort of wear to which the ribs were subjected. Claim 19 of the patent, which is typical of the claims relied on, is as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blohm & Voss AG v. Prudential-Grace Lines, Inc.
...v. Ladd, 218 F.Supp. 824 (D.C.D.C. 1963); B. F. Goodrich Co. v. United States Rubber Co., 147 F.Supp. 40, 63 (D.Md.1956) affirmed 244 F.2d 468 (4 Cir. 1957). The Goodrich case at page 63 and the therein cited cases of Western States Machine Co. v. S. S. Hepworth Co., 147 F.2d 345, 350 (2 Ci......
-
LODGE & SHIPLEY COMPANY v. Holstein and Kappert
...Wireless Telegraph Co. v. United States, 320 U.S. 1, 34, 63 S.Ct. 1393, 1409, 87 L.Ed. 1731 (1943); B. F. Goodrich Co. v. United States Rubber Co., 244 F.2d 468, 470 (4 Cir. 1957); Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Schlumberger Well Surveying Corp., 130 F.2d 589, 590, 591 (5 Cir. 1942);......
-
Diamond International Corporation v. Walterhoefer
...be, and whether or not reduced to practice — B. F. Goodrich Co. v. United States Rubber Co., D.Md.1956, 147 F.Supp. 40, 63, affd. 4 Cir. 1957, 244 F.2d 468; Western States Mach. Co. v. S. S. Hepworth Co., 2 Cir. 1945, 147 F.2d 345, 350; E. J. Brooks Co. v. Klein, 3 Cir. 1940, 114 F.2d 955 —......
-
Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd. v. Bendix Aviation Corp.
...182 F.2d 639, 643, 37 CCPA 1109; B. F. Goodrich Co. v. United States Rubber Co., D.C.D.Md.1956, 147 F.Supp. 40, 58, affirmed 4 Cir., 1957, 244 F.2d 468, 470). Should another court find that the alleged Eisler inventions were not identically disclosed or described in the Stevens and Dallas a......