Consolidated Fastener Co. v. Littauer, 63.

• Decision Date: 01 December 1897
• Docket Number: 63.
• Citation: 84 F. 164
• Parties: CONSOLIDATED FASTENER CO. v. LITTAUER et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

84 F. 164

CONSOLIDATED FASTENER CO. v. LITTAUER et al.

No. 63.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

December 1, 1897

Wm. A Jenner, for appellants.

John R Bennett, for appellee.

Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges.

LACOMBE Circuit Judge (after stating the facts).

This court pointed out the distinction between 'appeals from orders' and 'appeals from final decrees' in American Paper Pail & Box Co. v. National Folding-Box &amp Paper Co., 2 C.C.A. 165, 51 F. 229:

'The adjudication upon which the motion for preliminary injunction was based, not being the subject of the appeal, is to have the same weight which it should have before the circuit court, * * * in the absence of some controlling reason for disregarding it.'

No such controlling reason is suggested here. No prior patent, or prior use or prior publication, having an important bearing upon the validity or construction of the patent, and which was not before the court in the Columbian Company Case, is not presented, no new authority on patent law is now first cited, there is nothing to show an improvident exercise of legal discretion by the circuit judge, and apparently this is an effort to review the decision in the Columbian Case at final hearing upon a partial presentation of the evidence then considered, and without the cross-examination. There is no warrant for such practice, which was expressly condemned in American Paper Pail & Company V. National Folding-Box & Paper Co., supra. The only question, therefore, to be considered on this appeal, is whether the new model button infringes the first and third claims of the patent, as construed in the Columbian Company Case.

The button is of the kind which may be more appropriately called a 'spring stud,' and is used for fastening gloves; being adapted to engage with a socket corresponding to the old fashioned buttonhole. The flaps of the glove being brought together, the socket is pressed perpendicularly down upon the stud, and the spring cap of the latter yields sufficiently to allow the stud to enter the socket, whereupon its resiliency causes it to engage with the interior of the socket (such interior being a little larger in diameter than is the aperture leading into the socket) sufficiently to hold it in place, as against the ordinary horizontal pull. In his specification the patentee states that in two former patents (349,453, of September 21, 1886, and 369,882, of September 13, 1887) he had described and claimed a fastening device for gloves, consisting of a socket and spring stud, and proceeds:

'In the said patents the spring stud was formed by a semicylindrical spring cap, which was made from a blank, having a series of radial spring fingers, bent down and united to a common base. Within this spring cap was a dome-shaped piece, having a horizontal flange at its lower edge, which formed the base, to which the spring fingers were united by a clamping ring. The clamping ring also inclosed the upper flange of an eyelet, which was adapted to be put down through the fabric, and riveted over from the underside so as to hold the spring stud in place on the fabric.'

There seem to have been objections to this mode of inserting the eyelet, and 'to avoid these objections' the construction of the patent was devised-- 'In which construction the dome forms a fundamental supporting part, so rigid as to admit of an eyelet being riveted over against it, and affording a seat for the external spring, by which the stud is made to engage with the * * * socket. Instead of employing the eyelet with its upper flange held in the clamping ring, I make use of an eyelet having a smaller shank and a larger flange, which is inserted from beneath the fabric, and, extending up into the dome piece above described, is met by a depending lug in the top of the said dome piece, against which it is forced, and its upper edge thereby riveted over so that it cannot be withdrawn, the spring cap being thus held firmly in position upon the fabric.'

Describing the drawings, patentee proceeds:

'C is a clamping ring holding the spring fingers against flange, b. This clamping ring and the base of the dome form a flange extending beyond the spring, by which the stud may be held while the eyelet is being forced into position. The upper end of dome, B, instead of being rounded up, as in my previous patents mentioned above, is depressed so as to form a re-entrant cavity on its upper side, and a depending convexity on its lower side. This makes a sort of annular riveting depression in the upper part of the dome or support. D is an eyelet having a broad flange at its base, and adapted to pass through the fabric, E; and entering the dome, B, and meeting the depression at its upper end, it is thereby riveted over at its upper end so that it cannot be withdrawn, thus holding the spring stud firmly in its place on the fabric.'

Fig. 5, which shows all these parts, is here reproduced:

(Image Omitted)

The circuit court, in the Columbian Company Case, held that:

'The valuable feature of this stud is passing the eyelet through the underside of the fabric into the compressed dome, where it is upset and securely riveted; the fabric being held firmly between the flanges of the eyelet and dome. * * * That it is simple, durable, strong, inexpensive, and popular, is abundantly proved by the record.'

The claims in controversy are:

'(1) The combination, with an embracing button attached to one part of a fabric, of a spring stud attached to the opposite part, and adapted to engage the said button; the stud being composed of a depressed dome or support forming an annual riveting surface, and an exterior engaging spring, and being fastened to the fabric by an eyelet adapted to enter...