Erickson Tool Company v. Balas Collet Company, 18217.

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
• Citation: 404 F.2d 35
• Docket Number: No. 18217.,18217.
• Parties: ERICKSON TOOL COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BALAS COLLET COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
• Decision Date: 06 December 1968

404 F.2d 35 (1968)

ERICKSON TOOL COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BALAS COLLET COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18217.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

December 6, 1968.

John Kennedy Lynch, Cleveland Ohio, for appellant, Walter Maky, Cleveland, Ohio, on brief.

Frederick M. Bosworth, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellee, Paul S. Sessions, Frank Henry, Bosworth, Sessions, Herrstrom & Cain, Cleveland, Ohio, on brief.

Before O'SULLIVAN, PHILLIPS and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges.

PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant (Erickson) is the owner of U. S. Patent No. 3,035,845, granted May 22, 1962, known as the Benjamin patent. This action was filed against defendant-appellee (Balas) for infringement of Claim 3 of this patent. Balas denied infringement and filed a counterclaim for declaratory judgment of invalidity and non-infringement. District Judge Girard E. Kalbfleisch held that Claim 3 of the Benjamin patent is invalid for obviousness and lack of novelty. We affirm.

The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the District Court are published at 277 F.Supp. 226.

404 F.2d 36

The patent involves a device called a collet chuck, which is described as an instrument used to grip mechanically a tool or work piece. A common use is to hold drill bits and other such tools in drill presses and other machines. Erickson also was the owner of Benjamin collet chuck patent No. 2,465,837, which was issued March 29, 1949, and expired before this litigation commenced. This earlier collet chuck was known as the "Bulldog chuck."

Among other things, the District Court found as follows:

That Claim 3 of the patent in suit is the same as the "Bulldog chuck" covered by the prior expired patent with the single exception that a Torrington roller needle thrust bearing, which itself is a patented article, has been added to the nose of the instrument;

That all the elements and parts recited in Claim 3 of the patent in suit were old at the time of the alleged invention;

That collet chucks having a combination of a shank, a collet and a nose piece assembly were present in numerous prior art patents;

That the addition of the patented Torrington roller bearing to the previously patented device was nothing more than another use of the Torrington bearing with the natural, advertised and known consequences thereof which did not comprise a patentable combination; and

That the patented device is not novel and is obvious to one skilled in the art.

Mr. Benjamin, the...