Bronk v. Charles H. Scott Co.
| Decision Date | 06 January 1914 |
| Docket Number | 2026. |
| Citation | 211 F. 338 |
| Parties | BRONK v. CHARLES H. SCOTT CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
This is an appeal from a decree dismissing for want of equity appellant's bill charging appellee with having infringed patent No. 899,196, September 2, 1908, issued to appellant for a sanitary protector.
Figure 3 of the drawings is as follows:
(Image Omitted)
In the specification the construction of the patented article is described in these words: 'In order to give the protector the proper shape or configuration to conform to the general contour of the body of the wearer as shown most clearly in figure 3, and also provide for a circulation of air below the waist line (the shield being of impermeable material) the shield portion is cut away at its top to provide for the yoke portion 2, of suitable permeable material, and secured thereto by means of the horizontally-extending seam 4; and the yoke portion 2 is given the proper form or contour by having its upper portion contracted and folded into downwardly and laterally-extending tapering plaits or folds 5, on each side of a median seam 6, the folds being on the inner or under side of the yoke portion, as shown most clearly in figure 3 of the drawings.'
The only claim of the patent is as follows:
'A protector, comprising a permeable yoke portion provided with a median seam and having its upper portion contracted and folded into downwardly and laterally-extending tapering plaits or folds on each side of said of said median line and an impermeable portion comprising a single ply of material depending from said yoke portion, said yoke portion being provided about its upper edges with a waistband and said shield portion being provided with attaching-tabs near the depending end thereof.'
Appellee in its answer charged that appellant during the prosecution of her application had sought to obviate objections by making amendments which limited the claim of the patent to the exact details described and shown, and that in view of the state of the prior art, as disclosed by numerous patents which were named, no invention was required to devise the article patented. The answer then proceeded to say that appellee had done nothing which could be claimed to be an infringement of the patent except to manufacture and sell certain protectors specimens of which were filed with and made a part of the answer. Thereupon appellee, under equity rule 58, filed interrogatories to be answered by appellant, inquiring whether appellant's charge of infringement was based on any other or different acts of appellee than the manufacture and sale of the protectors described and exhibited in the answer. And appellant answered the interrogatories by saying that she had no other basis for her charge of infringement.
The permeable yoke portion of appellee's protectors is cut from a flat piece of material and has no plaits or folds whatever by which the yoke portion is made to depart from a plane surface and to conform to the contour of the wearer's body.
Appellee moved that the bill be dismissed on the ground that appellant's answers to the interrogatories disclosed that there was no infringement of the patent, and on the additional ground that in view of the file wrapper and prior patents, certified copies of which were filed with the motion, the patent was void for lack of invention. This motion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Central Republic T. Co.
...Krouse v. Brevard Tannin Co. (C. C. A.) 249 F. 538; Ansehl v. Puritan Pharmaceutical Co. (C. C. A.) 61 F.(2d) 131; Bronk v. Charles H. Scott Co. (C. C. A.) 211 F. 338. The obvious application of the rules above stated to some of the points argued in support of the motions makes it unnecessa......
-
Gatch Wire Goods Co. v. WA Laidlaw Wire Co.
...a part of the proceedings which led up to the issuance of the patent. The party who desires to use it must prove it. Bronk v. Scott Co., 7 Cir., 211 F. 338, 340. Rule 56 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, lends support to a practice which denies motions to ......
-
Marshall v. Rowe
...court to make a summary disposition of a cause by applying the law to an admitted state of facts.” Bronk v. Charles H. Scott Co. (C. C. A.) 211 F. 338, 340. So, in both cases now under consideration, the equivalent of perjured evidence entered into the disposition of the questions involved,......
-
I.T.S. Rubber Co. v. Essex Rubber Co.
... ... decision by District Judge Carpenter, in Bronk v. Charles ... H. Scott Co., 211 F. 338, 128 C.C.A. 17. In that case, ... answering ... ...