Gray v. Texas Co.
Decision Date | 07 February 1935 |
Docket Number | No. 10008.,10008. |
Citation | 75 F.2d 606 |
Parties | GRAY v. TEXAS CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Leonard L. Kalish, of Philadelphia, Pa. (Thompson, Hessian & Fletcher and Maurice A. Hessian, all of Minneapolis, Minn., on the brief), for appellant.
Lynn A. Williams, of Chicago, Ill. (Orren E. Safford, of Minneapolis, Minn., Casper William Ooms and Williams, Bradbury, McCaleb & Hinkle, all of Chicago, Ill., and Shaw, Safford and Putnam, of Minneapolis, Minn., on the brief), for appellee.
Before SANBORN, WOODROUGH, and BOOTH, Circuit judges.
This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a complaint after demurrer had been sustained thereto.
The suit was an action at law for damages for infringement by defendant-appellee of United States Patent No. 1,810,826 granted to plaintiff-appellant and covering a "Grease Service Rack."
The demurrer was based upon several grounds and was sustained generally; but the only ground relied upon by appellee in this court is as follows: "The patent which is the subject matter of the action and which is made a part of the complaint, is void upon its face because * * * it describes and claims a mere aggregation as distinguished from a true combination."
The object of the alleged invention is thus set out in the specifications:
The first claim of the patent may be taken as typical. It reads as follows: "A specialized lubricating service rack including a series of pump supports, for receiving a series of pumps containing different fluids, a corresponding series of dispensing pumps mounted upon said supports, a series of indicia upon said rack in juxtaposition to said series of pump supports, respectively, each indicating a particular part of the automobile requiring a specialized lubrication or service and a series of identification marks upon said pumps, and a corresponding series of identification marks upon said rack in juxtaposition to said pump supports, for identifying each with its particular support and hence with the particular legend denoting the part of the automobile to which said pump is properly applicable."
The service rack includes the following elements: (a) A series of pump supports; (b) a corresponding series of dispensing pumps; (c) a series of indicia upon the rack, close to the supports, each mentioning a particular part of the automobile requiring specialized lubrication; (d) a series of identification marks upon the pumps; (e) a corresponding series of identification marks upon the rack near the supports for identifying each pump with its particular support.
1. It is apparent that the claim is what is generally known as a combination claim. The real question at issue is whether the combination of elements disclosed by the patent is a "mere aggregation" not subject to patent, or is a "true combination" subject to patent within the provisions of the patent laws; in other words, a patentable combination.
A brief review of some of the pertinent authorities will be helpful.
Hailes v. Van Wormer, 20 Wall. 353, 354, 22 L. Ed. 241, involved "improvement in coal stoves" consisting of a combination of old devices. The court in its opinion said (page 368 of 20 Wall.):
Reckendorfer v. Faber, 92 U. S. 347, 23 L. Ed. 719, involved one of the lead pencil cases. The court in its opinion said (page 357 of 92 U. S.):
Pickering v. McCullough, 104 U. S. 310, 26 L. Ed. 749, involved an improvement in the manufacture of moulding crucibles and pots used in the manufacture of steel. The court in its opinion said (page 318 of 104 U. S.):
Richards v. Chase Elevator Co., 158 U. S. 299, 15 S. Ct. 831, 39 L. Ed. 991, involved an improvement in a grain transferring apparatus. The court in its opinion said (page 302 of 158 U. S., 15 S. Ct. 831, 833):
Grinnell Washing Mach. Co. v. E. E. Johnson Co., 247 U. S. 426, 38 S. Ct. 547, 62 L. Ed. 1196, involved improvements in washing machines. The court in its opinion said (page 432 of 247 U. S., 38 S. Ct. 547, 549):
The court reviews the cases above cited and then proceeds (page 433 of 247 U. S., 38 S. Ct. 547, 550):
In American Chocolate Machinery Co. v. Helmstetter (C. C. A.) 142 F. 978, page...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gatch Wire Goods Co. v. WA Laidlaw Wire Co.
...70 F. 788; Lamson Consol. Service Co. v. Siegel-Cooper Co., C.C., 106 F. 734; Baker v. Duncombe Mfg. Co., 8 Cir., 146 F. 744; Gray v. Texas Co., 8 Cir., 75 F.2d 606; Friend v. Burnham & Morrill Co., 1 Cir., 55 F.2d 150; Standard Oil Co. v. So. Pac. Co., C.C., 42 F. 295; Beer v. Wallbridge, ......
-
Smith v. Mid-Continent Inv. Co.
...own effect without the production of something novel" (Hailes v. Van Wormer, 20 Wall. 353, 368, 22 L.Ed. 241, quoted in Gray v. Texas Co., 8 Cir., 75 F.2d 606, 608) — it is a "mere tying together of so many sticks which retain their entirely separate identity of character and function". H. ......
-
Stewart-Warner Corp. v. Universal Lubricating Systems
...Fibre-Chamois Co. v. Buckskin-Fibre Co., 6 Cir., 72 F. 508; Friend v. Burnham & Morrill Co., 1 Cir., 55 F.2d 150, 155; Gray v. Texas Co., 8 Cir., 75 F.2d 606. We therefore have considered motion on the first ground urged, i. e., that noninfringement is apparent from the face of the record. ......
- Ocean Accident & Guar. Corp. v. JL Brandeis & Sons