J.J. Warren Co. v. Rosenblatt

Decision Date14 May 1897
Docket Number402.
Citation80 F. 540
PartiesJ. J. WARREN CO. v. ROSENBLATT. [1]
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

The J J. Warren Company, the appellant, as assignee of the patentees, filed its bill to restrain the infringement of letters patent of the United States No. 444,642, issued January 13, 1891, to Thomas Gaskell Allen, Jr., William Louis Sachtleben, and John Forrest Walters for 'luggage carrier for cycles.' The answer denied patentable novelty and invention, and asserted that the alleged invention required nothing more than the exercise of mere mechanical skill, and that the letters patent were invalid. Testimony was taken upon the part of the complainant below solely upon the question of infringement, and which established such infringement. The defendant introduced by stipulation a certain old medicine case in use in 1889. At the hearing the bill was dismissed for want of equity, and upon the ground that the patent was invalid. The specification of the patent contains the following: 'The usual and present construction of carrier for attaching to a cycle is of laced metal or of basket work, like a flat, rectangular screen with fasteners for fixing it onto the tip of the frame of the machine, and it is on such a screen that a coat or other article of wearing-apparel is usually fastened by a cord or a strap; and in some cases, when a small bag is used, it is generally hung from the handlebar; there being in every instance a difficulty of adjusting the carrier to the balance of the machine, which renders it inconvenient for the rider to master the motion of the machine, and necessarily increases his labor in working the pedals. Another disadvantage arises from the tendency of the machine to overbalance itself by the height of the article fastened on the upper frame,-- circumstances which have always prevented cyclists from taking a change of clothing with them on a journey. All the foregoing disadvantages are completely eclipsed by our invention, which consists of a hold-all or casing of a shape corresponding to the space between the 'arch,' 'strut,' and 'tie' of a machine, so that it occupies a position below the rider's body, and sufficiently low to the gravity-center as to steady the machine while traveling. Its position in no wise interferes with the rider's legs while operating the pedals, and its capacity is such that all the necessary articles for personal use, besides a stock of the most essential small articles of wearing-apparel, such as socks collars, and the like, besides a complete change of clothing can be stored in it for use, as required. The hold-all is provided internally with web-loops or pockets, and the opening, which is at the side, is covered by a flap, over which is another flap to fold in an opposite direction to enable the inclosed articles to be protected from dust and rain.'

The luggage carrier occupies the space between the arch, strut, and tie of a safety bicycle, and is of the form and shape of that space, and by straps and buckle fasteners is attached to the arch and strut and other portions of the cycle; the specification further stating that' 'The shape or formation of the hold-all will depend essentially upon the curvature of the machine frame, the hold-all being in every case, according to our invention, of such a character that it can be fixed into and occupy the space between the arch, strut, and tie of a cycle-machine propelled by manual power acting on pedals, as hereinbefore set forth. * * * The hold-all, when removed from the cycle-machine, can be readily carried in the hand, like an ordinary hand-bag, by the loop-strap, U.'

The claim of the patent is as follows: 'A hold-all, adapted to fit within the space between the arch, strut, and tie of a cycle-machine, and composed of two side plates, A, B. edge strip, C, one of the side plates being provided with a flap D, to fold downward, and coverable by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Spring-Air Co. v. Ragains
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • January 29, 1951
    ...Patents, Deller's Ed., pp. 1272, 1273, § 276. However, this presumption of validity is rebuttable and not conclusive. J. J. Warren Co. v. Rosenblatt, 7 Cir., 80 F. 540, certiorari denied 168 U.S. 710, 18 S.Ct. 943, 42 L.Ed. 1211; Dennis v. Great Northern Ry. Co., D. C., 51 F.2d 796; Reynold......
  • Crosley Corp. v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • December 14, 1945
    ...must be given due weight, but it cannot be allowed to stand in the face of definitely contrary facts. In J. J. Warren Co. v. Rosenblatt, 7 Cir., 80 F. 540, at page 543, the Court said: "A certain presumption in favor of the validity of the patent arises from the action of the patent office ......
  • Lettelier v. Mann
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • January 30, 1899
    ... ... courts authority to declare what constitutes novelty and ... invention. Warren Co. v. Rosenblatt, 25 C.C.A. 625, ... 80 F. 540. I am satisfied that the claims of ... ...
  • Callison v. Dean, 932.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • April 4, 1934
    ...prior art and skilled in that art, involves mere mechanical skill. In re Stovall (Cust. & Pat. App.) 63 F.(2d) 985; J. J. Warren Co. v. Rosenblatt (C. C. A. 7) 80 F. 540, 542; Donner v. Sheer Pharmacal Corp. (C. C. A. 8) 64 F.(2d) 217, 221; Fisher Governor Co. v. C. F. Camp Co. (C. C. A. 10......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT