I.T.S. Rubber Co. v. Panther Rubber Mfg. Co.
Decision Date | 26 May 1919 |
Docket Number | 1383. |
Citation | 260 F. 934 |
Parties | I.T.S. RUBBER CO. v. PANTHER RUBBER MFG. CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Rehearing Denied July 23, 1919.
F. O Richey, of Elyria, Ohio, and Charles A. Brown, of Chicago Ill. (F. A. Tennant, of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for appellant.
Horace Van Everen, of Boston, Mass. (Burton W. Cary, of Boston Mass., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BINGHAM, JOHNSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiff, the I.T.S. Rubber Company, is the owner of United States letters patent No. 1,177,833, issued to John G. Tufford, and complains of its infringement by the defendant, the Panther Rubber Manufacturing Company. The patent is for a mold for making rubber heels. There are 12 claims in the patent, but the only one in issue is No. 11, which reads as follows:
'A mold for forming heel lifts including assembled parts, one of which is provided with a molding chamber having the general outline of a heel lift, one wall of the molding chamber being concave and the opposed wall of said chamber having a convex surface coacting with said concave wall, one of said walls being provided with washer supporting devices.'
In the District Court it was held: (1) That the device was not patentably new as it was anticipated by the Nerger mold; (2) that, inasmuch as the claim in issue, by its terms, covered all concavoconvex molds whether the surfaces of the opposing walls were spherical or not, the claim was invalid; (3) that if the claim could be regarded as valid by being limited to the particular structure shown and described in the patent, the defendant's mold did not infringe it; and (4) if it could be regarded as valid without being thus limited, the defendant's mold did infringe.
The specification and claims as originally filed in the Patent Office related, not only to the mold to be employed in the manufacture of rubber heels, but to the method of acting upon the rubber to produce the heels. The claims for the method were later stricken out, and a patent was issued for the mold, but the description of the method was left in the specification.
In the specification the patentee declares:
He further states that--
'The invention resides in certain novel features of a mold such as is illustrated in the accompanying drawings.'
In the drawings he shows a base plate 1, an intermediate plate 2, and a top plate 3, in which are co-operating instrumentalities whereby the complete heel is produced.
'In the practice of the invention, the several plates or mold members are superimposed, * * * and to cause them to align with exactness the intermediate plate is provided on both its upper and lower surfaces with studs or lugs 14 adapted to engage openings or sockets 15 and 16 in the top plate and the base plate, respectively.'
In preparing the mold for operation, the specification states:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
I.T.S. Rubber Co. v. Essex Rubber Co.
... ... question thus presented is essentially the same as though the ... plaintiff had in its bill set up its patent with the usual ... allegations, plus the claim that the defendant had been ... American Electric-Welding Co. v. Lalance & Grosjean Mfg ... Co., 249 F. 968, 162 C.C.A. 166, is another recent case, ... closely in point, in which ... See, also, I. T. S. Rubber Co. v. Panther Rubber Mfg ... Co., 260 F. 934, 171 C.C.A. 576, in which the patent for ... molding the Tufford ... ...
-
Talon, Inc. v. Union Slide Fastener, Inc., 15714.
...v. Societe Anonyme Des Anciens Establishments Cail, 1911, 224 U.S. 309, 328, 32 S.Ct. 479, 56 L.Ed. 778; I.T.S. Rubber Co. v. Panther Rubber Mfg. Co., 1 Cir., 1919, 260 F. 934, 937; Byers Mach. Co. v. Keystone Driller Co., 6 Cir., 1930, 44 F.2d 283; France Mfg. Co. v. Jefferson Electric Co.......
-
Jensen-Salsbery Lab. v. OM Franklin B. Serum Co.
...A. 6) 25 F.(2d) 659, 663; Kelly Well Co. v. Kirschke Concrete Well Co. (C. C. A. 8) 14 F. (2d) 274, 276; I. T. S. Rubber Co. v. Panther Rubber Mfg. Co. (C. C. A. 1) 260 F. 934, 938. ...
-
NO Nelson Mfg. Co. v. FE Myers & Bro. Co.
...mechanism." We may look to the specification for construing the language and asserting the meaning of the claim. I. T. S. Co. v. Panther Co. (C. C. A. 1) 260 F. 934, 938, and cases cited. Prior patents are part of the prior art only by what they disclose on their face (Fulton v. Bishop C. C......