Hartford-Empire Co. v. Coe
Decision Date | 07 December 1936 |
Docket Number | No. 6544-6546.,6544-6546. |
Parties | HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO. v. COE (three cases). |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Vernon M. Dorsey and Alan F. Garner, both of Washington, D. C., and Sidney F. Parham, of Hartford, Conn., for appellant.
R. F. Whitehead, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, C. J., and VAN ORSDEL, GRONER, and STEPHENS, JJ.
Plaintiff-appellant, the Hartford-Empire Company, filed three bills of complaint in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, under section 4915, R.S., as amended (35 U.S.C.A. § 63), where the cases were tried on a single record. While the cases are here in separate appeals, they are on a single record.
No. 6544 relates to the Peiler application, No. 823,894, filed March 10, 1914. Appeal No. 6545 involves the application of Steimer, No. 543,582, filed February 12, 1910. Appeal No. 6546 relates to an application of Steimer, No. 65,185, filed October 27, 1925 as a division of the original Steimer application involved in Appeal No. 6545.
The applications here involved all relate to the feeding of molten glass to molds in the production of bottles, jars, and other kinds of glassware. The claims in No. 6544 and No. 6545 are process claims. The claim in No. 6546 is an apparatus claim.
In No. 6544 claims 2 and 92 sufficiently define the alleged invention:
The claimed invention in this case consists in forming from the molten glass contained in the melting furnace a regulated succession of mold charges, each having proper weight, compactness, and viscosity for fabrication in a mold into an article of glassware. Each charge is formed while freely suspended in the air, and while it remains connected with the glass in the furnace. When formed, it is mechanically cut off and dropped into the mold where it is converted into the intended article of glassware. To accomplish this result, the various steps taken must be co-ordinated with each other in an exact manner to accomplish the desired result.
In practicing the present method, the viscosity of the glass is so affected above the submerged orifice that the glass from which the charge is to be cut emerges in a "pasty" or highly viscous condition so that it will remain suspended in a mass which will hold itself in compact form until more than sufficient glass for a mold charge has accumulated.
It is well to point out that Peiler's method, known as "pasty glass suspended charge feeding," is in distinction to the mechanical methods of the prior art which employed hot, liquid glass. The term "pasty glass" is defined as a highly viscous condition referred to as "super-viscous" in Hartford-Empire Co. v. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. (C.C.A.) 59 F.(2d) 399, where the court was considering Peiler's patent No. 1655391, covering an invention involving an improvement of the method here in issue. This pasty or highly viscous condition is essential to the method here used in that it enables the suspension of a mass which holds itself in compact form.
It appears that Peiler is a rather distinguished inventor in this field, and has filed numerous other applications and obtained a number of patents relating to the method of feeding molten glass to the molds. The appellant company has been involved in a number of suits in connection with these Peiler patents, and special stress is laid by appellant on the case of Hartford-Empire Co. v. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. (C.C.A.3d) 59 F.(2d) 399. That suit involved a patent granted to Peiler in 1928 on an application filed in 1919, which is known as the "plunger" patent. That process disclosed a plunger which operated in a vertical direction over the opening through which the molten glass passed from the furnace, and its function was to control the amount of glass passing through the orifice.
In the Hazel-Atlas Case the court paid a great tribute to Peiler for revolutionizing the art and supplying an "urgent and desperate need" of the bottle manufacturing industry. The patent there under consideration came into competition with what was known at the time as the Owens method. The Owens machine was so expensive (costing $80,000) that it was controlled by a few manufacturing companies. The Peiler device, being much cheaper, and being an improvement over the Owens method, had through competition supplanted almost entirely the use of the Owens method. The court, however, in that case was not considering an apparatus or process such as is disclosed by Peiler in the present case, but the process and apparatus of the later Peiler patent. The court treated the patent there under consideration as involving a complete solution of the problem.
That court, while considering devices of Peiler to regulate the out-let flow from the molten mass, referred to the gob feeding process here under consideration and distinguished it from the prior art in the following statement 59 F.(2d) 399, at page 407:
In the case of Hartford-Empire Co. v. Nivison-Weiskopf Co. (C.C.A.) 58 F.(2d) 701, 704, the court had before it for consideration some of the Peiler patents and a patent to Steimer, granted as a division of the application here in suit. In that case the court held "that Peiler was not the inventor of suspended charge feeding or shaping charges while in suspension," and relied upon the prior disclosures of Hitchcock, Brookfield, Lot, and others.
The Board of Appeals in the Patent Office rejected the claims here in issue chiefly upon the Hitchcock patent, No. 805068. An examination of the Hitchcock patent discloses that it was not a gob feeding device. What Hitchcock did was to pour the molten glass into the mold and when the mold was filled to a proper proportion the narrow string of glass between the mold and the molten mass from which it is drawn was severed and the portion above the point of severance was drawn back to the molten mass while the portion below...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kelley v. Coe
...Rubber Tire Co., 220 U.S. 428, 434-435, 31 S.Ct. 444, 55 L.Ed. 527; In re Huff, 48 App.D.C. 258, 263; Hartford-Empire Co. v. Coe, 66 Ap.D.C. 344, 347, 87 F.2d 741, 744. 7 "If it had been a success, he would hardly have thrown it aside permanently. * * * His efforts in that direction must be......
-
United States v. Hartford-Empire Co.
...mandate of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in § 4915, R.S., 35 U.S.C.A. § 63, actions. See Hartford-Empire Co. v. Coe, 66 App.D.C. 344, 87 F.2d 741. Supporting its position, defendant argues its right to '571-3 was decreed by a court of competent jurisdiction again......