Cazier v. Mackie-Lovejoy Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 11 April 1905 |
| Docket Number | 1,117. |
| Citation | 138 F. 654 |
| Parties | CAZIER v. MACKIE-LOVEJOY MFG. CO. et al. [1] |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Appellant failed in his suit to enjoin infringement of letters patent No. 696,940, issued to him on April 8, 1902, for a trousers-hanger.
The claim said to be infringed is the fifth, as follows:
'(5) A trousers-hanger comprising two opposed elongated clamping-jaws formed of spring-metal strips, arched from end to end so as to engage the interposed fabric near their ends, said jaws being adapted in closing together to stretch the fabric in the direction of the length of the jaws, a V-shaped suspending-spring, upon the ends of which said clamping-jaws are mounted, a hook at the apex of the suspending-spring, and a link or clasp adapted to slide over the arms of the suspending-spring to confine the same and hold the jaws closed upon the fabric.'
The record contains the following prior patents: No. 36,100August 1862, to Meacham;No. 233,964, November, 1885, to Bear;No. 422,059, February, 1890, to Nichols;BritishNo 6,866, to Killick, 1889;BritishNo. 453, to Burden, 1890;BritishNo. 8,670, to White, 1896; and SwissNo. 3,253, to Schweizer, 1891.
Other facts are stated in the opinion.
De Witt C. Tanner, for appellant.
Thomas F. Sheridan, for appellees.
Before JENKINS, GROSSCUP, and BAKER, Circuit Judges.
The hook, the suspending spring, and the locking link, in combination with clamping jaws for trousers-hangers, were all old.The novelty of this claim, if any exists, must be found in the particular clamping jaws.Schweizer used wooden clamping jaws, arched or hollowed out in the middle, for the purpose of accommodating the seams of the trousers.Killick disclosed clamping jaws of sheet metal-- straight strips except for a rectangular recess at the center for accommodating the seams.He also claimed wooden jaws with the same recess.Neither of these patents mentions any spring action.It is manifest that, if the arch of these reference jaws were flattened by pressure at the center, the ends would spread apart.The clamping jaws of the claim in suit are required to be of spring metal, arched from end to end so as to engage the interposed fabric near their ends.As the arch is flattened, the bearing surface is gradually increased, and the elongation of the jaws smooths out the ends of the trousers legs.The construction was new; the result was new; and the claim evinces, we think, an original idea, neither a plagiarism nor a mere selecting and combining of others' thoughts.
Appellees' expert denies the utility of clamping jaws 'adapted, in closing together, to stretch the fabric in the direction of the length of the jaws. ' Overstretching would be injurious, but the amount performed by appellant's device, we are satisfied, is advantageous.The record shows a large and prosperous business built up on appellant's invention.And the appellee company, failing to use any of the older forms of clamping jaws, and seizing upon appellant's success, is hardly in a position to question the utility of the novel feature.
We have carefully examined the file wrapper and contents, and find nothing therein to limit the claim to less than its obvious reading.Acquiescence in the rejection of 'arched clamping jaws' is no graver than the concession in appellant's specification that 'the arched form of the clamping jaws is not broadly new. ' Both were required by the prior art.But that could not prevent appellant from making a narrower claim.And there is no occasion for appellant to seek to enlarge the claim in suit or to invoke the doctrine of equivalents with respect to the clamping jaws, for the appellee company has them identically.
At first the appellee company made and sold an exact copy of appellant's device in all of its parts.Before suit was brought, a change was made; and it is contended that this change obviates infringement.Instead of appellant's V-shaped...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cutter Laboratories v. Lyophile-Cryochem Corp.
...a substitute well known at the time of the invention, slower freezing. Cf. Pedersen v. Dundon, 9 Cir., 220 F. 309; Cazier v. Mackie-Lovejoy Mfg. Co., 7 Cir., 138 F. 654. It has long been established that such a substitution does not avoid infringement. Gill v. Wells, 22 Wall. 1, 89 U.S. 1, ......
-
Dangler v. Imperial Mach. Co.
...announced, namely, that the officers are not liable unless they act outside the scope of their official duties. Cazier v. Mackie-Lovejoy Mfg. Co., 138 F. 654, 71 C. C. A. 104; Reed v. Cropp Concrete Mach. Co., 225 F. 764, 141 C. C. A. It may be successfully urged that this court in Reed v. ......
-
Powder Power Tool Corp. v. Powder Actuated Tool Co.
...company. No suggestion is made that the company is insolvent. We think pertinent the statement of this Court in Cazier v. Mackie-Lovejoy Mfg. Co., 7 Cir., 138 F. 654, 656: "* * *, a corporation, can act only through its officers and agents. We find nothing in the record to show that the def......
-
Weston Electrical Instrument Co. v. Empire Electrical Instrument Co.
...case, it was made to appear on hearing that the company was organized for the express purpose of violating the patent.' In Cazier v. Mackie-L. Mfg. Co. et al., supra, the court held: 'Infringement by a corporation gives no right of action against one of its officers individually, unless he ......