Fretwell v. Gillette Safety Razor Co., 1009.

• Decision Date: 10 May 1934
• Docket Number: No. 1009.,1009.
• Citation: 6 F. Supp. 818
• Parties: FRETWELL v. GILLETTE SAFETY RAZOR CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Delaware

6 F. Supp. 818

FRETWELL v. GILLETTE SAFETY RAZOR CO.

No. 1009.

District Court, D. Delaware.

May 10, 1934.

William G. Mahaffy, of Wilmington, Del., Herbert J. Jacobi, of Washington, D. C., and Israel H. Perskin, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for plaintiff.

E. Ennalls Berl (of Ward & Gray), of Wilmington, Del., and George P. Dike (of Macleod, Calver, Copeland & Dike), of Boston, Mass., for defendant.

NIELDS, District Judge.

This is the usual bill in equity charging Gillette Safety Razor Company with infringement of United States letters patent No. 1,407,930, granted to Julian W. Fretwell, the plaintiff, September 11, 1923. The invention is stated by the patentee to be for "new and useful Improvements in Locked Razors." The defense is noninfringement.

What did Fretwell contribute to the art? He testified to observing that inmates of jails and asylums were only shaved weekly and were not permitted the free use of razors. He conceived the idea of taking a Gillette type safety razor and fitting it with means controlled by a key for locking the blade into shaving or nonshaving position. To provide for the nonshaving position, a V-shaped groove was employed just back of the rounded edges of the guard teeth into which the cutting edge of the blade was disposed. When in that position the razor blade could not be used either for shaving or for any other purpose. Should any one attempt to remove the blade from the holder when in locked position by inserting a pointed instrument in the groove below the cutting edges or picking at it, he would, to use the language of the patentee, "break the blade as literally to pieces as the manufacturer desired to make it." Plaintiff also had in mind a domestic use for his invention. If the master of the house did not desire a servant, child, or other person to use the razor, it could be locked into nonshaving position and the key removed.

Having conceived the locked razor, plaintiff also provided for a special blade for use in a safety razor. It is with this blade that we are concerned.

In his specification, Fretwell says: "My improvements are designed more particularly for embodiment in a certain well known type of safety razor." Fretwell here refers to the well-known Gillette type razor with the three-hole transversely flexible blade. As objects of his invention he states:

"One object of my said invention is the provision of a locked razor — i. e., a razor so constructed that its blade is locked against removal and against surreptitious use by servants. * * *

"Another object of the invention is the provision in a razor characterized as set forth, of a flexible blade provided with a multiplicity of closely arranged apertures adjacent to each of its edges so that in the event of an insane person seeking to pick at the blade with a view to removing the same, the blade will be broken into fragments and rendered unfit for use."

"Manifestly a razor characterized as indicated may be placed in the hands of an insane man for legitimate use," says the patentee, "without liability of the patient being able to remove the blade and use the same in a suicidal effort. Also, a razor of the kind stated may be left in his room by the owner without possibility of any person using the razor, the locking means being preferably controlled by a key to be carried by the owner, and manipulation of such key being absolutely necessary in order to dispose the blade for use."

The patent contains four claims. The first three are directed to a locked razor— the combination of holder and blade. Claim 4, the only one in suit, is for a blade only. It reads:

"4. As a new article of manufacture, a transversely flexible razor blade having a sharpened edge and also having adjacent to said edge a multiplicity of minute, closely arranged apertures."

For over thirty years defendant has manufactured the Gillette razor and blade in Boston. It has distributing agencies throughout the world. The razor consists of a holder and a transversely flexible blade. Until 1921 the standard Gillette blade had three holes of approximately the same size spaced along the longitudinal axis of the blade. The center hole engaged a threaded stud which secured the clamping holder in place. The two end holes each engaged positioning studs to properly position the blade for shaving. Between 1921 and 1930 two new models of Gillette razors were manufactured. Each of these used the standard three-hole blade. Since 1930 the new Gillette model has been manufactured. This razor has a central longitudinal bar for positioning the blade and calls for a long slot in the blade. In that year there was a merger between defendant and Auto-Strop Safety Razor Company, the manufacturer of a safety razor called "Probak." That razor had positioning means of various sizes and shapes. The established practice of defendant was that every blade put out by it should fit very razor put out. After the merger, defendant modified the slots and other cut-out portions of its blades to fit not only all preceding Gillette razors but also all preceding Probak razors. Some slots or cut-out portions were also added to provide a blade to fit a razor which defendant expected to manufacture, and the added slots would be necessary to engage the new positioning means.

Plaintiff contends that all of defendant's blades other than the original three-hole Gillette blade upon which plaintiff's improvement is based are infringements of his patent.

Plaintiff seeks a broad construction of his claim because he realizes such a construction is essential to his case. He invokes the language of the specification to justify that construction. The terms of the claim, however, measure a patentee's right to relief. The specification may be referred to to limit a claim. It can never be available to expand it. When a claim is explicit, the courts cannot...