General Electric Co. v. Yost Electric Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 24 May 1905 |
| Docket Number | 149. |
| Citation | 139 F. 568 |
| Parties | GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. v. YOST ELECTRIC MFG. CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Charles Neave and Richard N. Dyer, for appellant.
Marcellus Bailey, for appellees.
Before WALLACE, TOWNSEND, and COXE, Circuit Judges.
The court below reached the conclusion that 'complainant's device consists merely in making in one piece that which was formerly made in two parts, and performs no new function'; and that 'the production of a seamless insulating lining having a shoulder intermediate its length required nothing more than the knowledge of the trained engineer or workman.' The correctness of this conclusion is challenged on the following grounds: which introduced 'a new construction, involving a new function,' dependent upon 'the discovery that a thin sheet-like tube of insulating fiber could be subjected to this character of compression,' etc.; and that this was not obvious, but 'involved the exercise of the inventive faculty.' That the contention as to the one-piece lining is not the one insisted on by appellant in the Patent Office appears from the following statement of his attorney after the rejection of some 18 claims by the examiner:
'It is submitted that applicant is entitled to such claims as will protect him against the use by infringers of any one-piece lining of insulating material of substantially the character described, which is provided with a shoulder intermediate the ends to fit the shoulder of the shell, it being immaterial whether the lining be formed from a closed cylinder or from a flat strip such as that shown in the Perkins patent.'
This construction would cover every one-piece lining of the confessedly old material if made in the patented shape whether it did or did not have seams. That this construction was not dependent upon a new discovery is proved by the Taylor patent of 1885, where the patentee, describing his process of manufacturing vulcanized wheels, says:
'Vulcanized fiber wheels have heretofore been largely used for various purposes in machinery. * * * My present invention consists primarily in making the rollers by cutting the blanks from a sheet or block of the material and then forming the wheel under heavy pressure in a die of the desired shape. I have discovered that by this method the material behaves very well, and 'flows' in the die so as to fill the die completely and assume permanent lasting shape.'
The patentee of the patent in suit says:
'I have discovered that it is possible to work insulating material-- such as fiber,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Monaplastics, Inc. v. Caldor, Inc.
...of three. Magnus Harmonica Corp. v. Lapin Products, supra; Griffith Rubber Mills v. Hoffar, supra; General Electric Co. v. Yost Electric Mfg. Co., 139 F. 568, 570 (2d Cir. 1905); cf. Manzel v. Houde Engineering Corp., 25 F.Supp. 40, 44 (W.D.N.Y.1938). While the hinge web served to integrate......
-
Ludlum Steel Co. v. Terry
...in the third patent are not in point. They are chiefly: Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 11 How. 248, 13 L. Ed. 683; General Electric Company v. Yost Electric Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.) 139 F. 568; Drake C. P. S. L. Co. v. Brownell (C. C. A.) 123 F. 86, 87. The last was a case where a steel lug was substit......
-
Joyce, Inc. v. Fern Shoe Co.
...U.S. 164, 14 S.Ct. 68, 37 L.Ed. 1039; Standard Caster & Wheel Co. v. Caster Socket Co., 6 Cir., 1901, 113 F. 162; General Electric v. Yost Electric, 2 Cir., 1905, 139 F. 568; D'Arcy v. Staples & Hanford Co., 6 Cir., 1908, 161 F. 733; In re Prinzler, Cust. & Pat. App., 1938, 97 F.2d 102; Kay......
-
D'Arcy v. Staples & Hanford Co.
... ... Lord Case were general, declaring simply that the defendant ... had infringed ... case relating to bed bottoms in Simmons Mfg. Co. v ... Southern Spring Bed Co., 140 F. 606, 72 ... 162, 51 C.C.A. 109; ... General Electric Co. v. Yost Electric Co., 139 F ... 568, 71 C.C.A. 552; ... ...