Grand Rapids Show Case Co. v. Baker
Decision Date | 30 June 1914 |
Docket Number | 2350. |
Parties | GRAND RAPIDS SHOW CASE CO. v. BAKER et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Charles M. Wilson and Hugh E. Wilson, both of Grand Rapids, Mich (Cyrus W. Rice, of Grand Rapids, Mich., of counsel), for appellant. Frederick Benjamin, of Chicago, Ill., for appellees.
Before WARRINGTON and KNAPPEN, Circuit Judges, and SANFORD, District judge.
This is a bill in equity brought by the appellant, the Grand Rapids Show Case Co., the plaintiff below, against Barney R. Baker and the other individual appellees, doing business as B. R Baker & Co., for the alleged infringement of letters patent No. 11,907, on wardrobes, reissued to John E. Kennedy, May 7 1901, and subsequently assigned to the plaintiff, and letters patent No. 825,362, on article-supports for wardrobes, issued to the plaintiff, as assignee of Anthony Vanderveld, July 10 1906; the bill alleging that the inventions described in said two letters patent were adapted for, and capable of, conjoint use in one structure, and were both infringed by the structure used by the defendants. The appellee the Curtis-Leger Fixture Co., being the manufacturer of the structure used by the defendants, under letters patent No. 909,990, on extensible supporting devices, issued to Elmer A. Clark, January 19, 1909, was allowed to intervene and conduct the defense, and is hereinafter called the defendant. The defenses were anticipation and want of invention; invalidity of the Kennedy reissued patent; non-infringement; and multifariousness. After a hearing on pleadings and proof, the court below, being of opinion that the defendants' structure did not infringe either of the plaintiff's patents, dismissed the bill of complaint, with costs; from which decree the plaintiff has appealed to this court.
The devices in controversy, which are known as garment racks or slides, are extensible garment-hanging devices, used in connection with wardrobes in stores for the sale of ready-made garments. Each consists, in the commercial structures, of three horizontal members of equal length, arranged vertically, the upper member being fixed in position inside the wardrobe, and the two others, from the lower of which the garments are suspended, being progressively slidable or extensible, upon a telescoping principle. When retracted or closed, the entire rack, with the suspended garments, is inside of and protected by the wardrobe; when fully extended, the intermediate member projects about half its length beyond the upper fixed member, and the lower member about half its length beyond the intermediate member, thus extending the lower member entirely outside of the wardrobe and making the suspended garments readily accessible.
The following illustration shows a wardrobe, with the defendants' garment rack extended:
(Image Omitted)
In the defendants' commercial device the upper fixed member of the garment rack consists of a hollow rectangular casing, with a slit in the bottom; the intermediate member, of two bars joined in the form of an I beam; and the lower member, to which a garment-hanger rod is attached, of a hollow rectangular casing similar to the upper member, but inverted, with the slit in the top. The web of the intermediate beam extends through the slits into the interior of each of the two rectangular casings, its flanges being within their cavities, and thus connecting them together. In its operation the upper flanges of the beam slide upon the lower flanges of the upper casing, and the upper flanges of the lower casing slide, in turn, upon the lower flanges of the beam; there being roller bearings or other anti-friction devices inside of each of the casings at suitable points of contact with the beam. The following illustration shows the interfitting arrangement of the casings and beam, both connecting them together and enabling them to slide the one upon the other:
(Image Omitted)
Kennedy's Reissued Patent. The specification of Kennedy's reissued patent states that the object of his invention 'is to design a form of wardrobe more particularly applicable for stores for ready-made garments, whereby storage-space may be economized, classification of size and price facilitated, and time saved in selling and handling the goods,' and that 'it consists, essentially, of a wardrobe, each section of which is provided with extensible supports or hanging devices, comprising each a plurality or set of members, preferably tubes or rods, the uppermost member of each set being mounted upon or carried by the frame of the wardrobe, and the lower member being suspended by suitable carriers from the said upper member.' Figure 3 of the drawings, showing one of the extensible hanging devices retracted, and Figure 4, showing such device partly extended, are here reproduced.
(Image Omitted)
The extensible hanging device is thus described in the specification:
The specification contains six claims, in one of which the horizontal members of the extensible hanger are described as three 'tubes' or 'rods'; in two, as a main supporting 'member' and a plurality of auxiliary 'members'; and in three, as a main supporting 'rod or tube' and a plurality of auxiliary 'rods or tubes.' Claims 1, 2 and 3, which sufficiently illustrate these three classes, are as follows:
The plaintiff contends, in effect, that Kennedy was a pioneer in the invention of such extensible garment racks in combination with a wardrobe; that the claims of his reissued patent are to be broadly construed, and cover, with their equivalents all forms of such extensible racks consisting of a main supporting member fixed in the frame of the wardrobe, with two or more auxiliary members, supported therefrom and from each other, and connected in such manner that the lower member may be extended approximately its entire length beyond the outer end of the fixed supporting member and the front of the wardrobe; and that it is hence infringed by the defendants' device. The defendants insist, upon the other hand, that this reissued patent is entirely...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moist Cold Refrigerator Co. v. Lou Johnson Co., 13811.
...D. C., 29 F.2d 918, 921, affirmed 2 Cir., 34 F.2d 609, certiorari denied 280 U.S. 604, 50 S.Ct. 86, 74 L.Ed. 649; Grand Rapids Show Case Co. v. Baker, 6 Cir., 216 F. 341. 9 Parker and Whipple Co. v. Yale Lock Co., 123 U.S. 87, 8 S.Ct. 38, 31 L.Ed. 100; Coon v. Wilson, 113 U.S. 268, 5 S.Ct. ......
-
American Automotoneer Co. v. Porter
... ... of law or a mistake of fact. In the typical case it is rather ... of the latter character, and is made ... 342, 403, 10 Sup.Ct. 884, 34 L.Ed ... 168; Grand Rapids Co. v. Baker (C.C.A. 6) 216 F ... 341, 351, 132 ... show that the error was not inadvertent that there seems to ... ...
-
Dill Mfg. Co. v. JW SPEAKER CORPORATION
...is manifest from the record." See: Van Kannel Revolving Door Co. v. Winton Hotel Co., 6 Cir., 276 F. 234, 238; Grand Rapids Show Case Co. v. Baker, et al., 6 Cir., 216 F. 341; Wayne Manufacturing Company, et al. v. Coffield Motor Washer Co., 8 Cir., 227 F. 987, where the courts held it was ......
-
Foxboro Co. v. Taylor Instrument Companies
...of the claims had been unnecessarily limited. The Mason patent was not reissued to correct functional claims. In Grand Rapids Show Case Co. v. Baker, 6 Cir., 216 F. 341, the Court in holding a reissued patent invalid held that the inventor in proceedings in the Patent Office under his origi......