Brookfield v. Elmer Glass Works

Decision Date28 March 1906
Citation144 F. 418
CourtU.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

Kenyon & Kenyon, for complainants.

Walter H. Bacon and Joseph C. Fraley, for defendant.

LANNING District Judge.

The complainants allege that the defendant infringes the Kribs patent, No. 542,565, dated July 9, 1895. In the introductory words to the specification of the patent it is declared that:

'The object of this invention is to provide a press by which the operation of forming insulators for telegraph lines and the like can be rapidly and accurately carried on; and the invention resides in the novel features of construction set forth in the following specifications and claims and illustrated in the annexed drawings.'

The specification contains a particular description of the drawings, and is followed by 10 claims. The only claims alleged to be infringed are the second and third, and they are as follows:

'(2) An actuating rod provided with a detachable screw plunger combined with a rotary spindle adapted to engage the screw plunger, a mold, and a movable support for the mold substantially as described.
'(3) An actuating rod provided with a detachable screw plunger, combined with a rotary spindle adapted to engage the screw plunger, a mold, a movable support for the mold, and a lock for holding the support with the mold in operative position relatively to the actuating rod and spindle, substantially as described.'

The patent was sustained as a valid one in Brookfield et al. v. Novelty Glass Manufacturing Company (C.C.) 124 F. 551. The defense in the present case is merely that of noninfringement. In the proofs, reference has been made by the defendant's witnesses to a number of patents antedating the patent in suit; but, in this suit, they can be used only for the purpose of ascertaining the prior art, and to aid in the construction that should be given to the claims of the patent in suit. Brown v. Piper, 91 U.S. 37, at bottom of page 41, 23 L.Ed. 200; Grier v. Wilt, 120 U.S. 412, at page 429, 7 Sup.Ct.,at page 729, 30 L.Ed. 712.

The parts of the invention mentioned in the second claim of the patent are so combined that the mold, after a proper quantity of molten glass has been placed in it, is brought by the rotation of the movable support or turn-table on which it rests to a point directly under the actuating rod; then the actuating rod, which moves vertically up and down by means of a lever, to the lower end of which a screw plunger has been previously attached, is pressed down, thus forcing the plunger into the molten glass; then, on raising the lever, the plunger becomes detached from the actuating rod and remains in the molten glass; the mold, and its contents of molten glass and the plunger imbedded therein, are then carried to the rotary spindle by turning the movable support or turn-table on which the mold rests; the lower end of the rotary spindle is then attached to or engages with the upper end of stem of the plunger, so that, by turning the spindle, the plunger is unscrewed from the glass. The glass insulator thus formed has on its inner surface a spiral thread corresponding with the external spiral thread of the screw plunger.

That each of the elements in this combination is old appears by reference to the following patents. The movable support or turn-table and the glass molds carried thereon are shown in the Cook patent, No. 238,090, dated February 22, 1881, in which it is said (referring to the annexed drawing) that 'A is a revolving table, placed and capable of revolution upon a suitable bed, A,1 and provided with handles, A,2 for turning it thereon. On the table, A, are two two-part molds, B and B,1' etc.; and in the Haley patent, No. 181,434, dated August 22, 1876, in which Haley says that 'in lieu of the sliding mold-guide plate shown in my patented machine I now make use of a rotary plate, P. This preferably has four equidistant sockets for the molds and makes a quarter revolution at each rise and fall of the plunger,' etc.; and in the Johnson patent, No. 282,989, dated August 14, 1883, in which Johnson says that 'The turn-table, A, upon which the glass molds are located, is suitably mounted upon a table, B, of any desired construction,' etc.

An actuating rod provided with a screw plunger detachable therefrom is shown in the Brookfield patent, No. 113,393, dated April 4, 1871, where the patentee in his specification says: 'This invention relates to the manufacture of screw telegraph-insulators of glass or other molten material, and consists in a new and improved process, by which I subject the molten glass or metal in the mold to the action of a press to whose spindle (what is here called the 'spindle' clearly served as an 'actuating rod') is connected a screw plunger or former by a detachable connection, and after the screw plunger has been pressed or forced into the glass or metal and the socket and screw-thread in the insulator formed, I disconnect the screw plunger or former from the press and withdraw the mold, with the plunger remaining therein, from the press. I then connect a fresh screw plunger or former to the spindle of the press, in readiness to press or force into the next mold, and so proceed, using as many screw plungers and molds as are necessary to keep the press employed; the detached plungers or formers being screwed out of the molds as soon as the glass or metal has 'set.' In carrying out my process I use a lever or a screw press; but in the present illustration I have selected a lever-press, A, to whose spindle, B, I attach a screw plunger or former, C, by a detachable connection, so that the renewal of the plunger can be easily and rapidly effected.'

An actuating rod provided with a detachable screw plunger is also shown in the Pennycuick patent, No. 324,157, dated August 11, 1855.

A rotary spindle adapted to engage the screw plunger so that the screw plunger may be unscrewed from the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Wagner Typewriter Co. v. F.S. Webster Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • March 28, 1906
    ... ... Justice Clifford in ... Aiken v. Manchester Print Works, 2 Cliff. 435 (Fed ... Cas. No. 113), where the invention was of a ... platinum sleeves, close the hole by fusing a piece of glass ... over it, and then exhaust the air. (C.C.) 58 F. 878, ... affirmed.' ... ...
  • Novelty Glass Mfg. Co. v. Brookfield
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • June 1, 1909
    ... ... requirement that its chief merit, if not its real claim, to ... invention consists ... But as ... is well said in Brookfield v. Elmer Glass Works ... (C.C.) 144 F. 418, 421, a suit on the same patent ... against another defendant, the novelty as well as the virtue ... of the ... ...
  • Brookfield v. Novelty Glass Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • January 27, 1908
    ... ... claims as valid combinations. When claims 2 and 3 of the same ... patent were before me, in Brookfield v. Elmer Glass Works ... (C.C.) 144 F. 418, I also held the elements of the ... combinations in those two claims to be old, as did the ... Circuit Court of ... ...
  • Brookfield v. Elmer Glass Works
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • May 24, 1907
    ...for appellee. Before DALLAS, GRAY, and BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judges. DALLAS, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from a decree in a patent suit (144 F. 418), which the appellants were the complainants, and the appellee was the defendant. The defendant was charged with infringement of patent No. ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT