Jacobs Mfg. Co. v. T.R. Almond Mfg. Co.

• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
• Citation: Jacobs Mfg. Co. v. T.R. Almond Mfg. Co., 177 F. 935 (2nd Cir. 1910)
• Decision Date: 07 March 1910
• Docket Number: 170.
• Parties: JACOBS MFG. CO. v. T. R. ALMOND MFG. CO.

177 F. 935

JACOBS MFG. CO. v. T. R. ALMOND MFG. CO.

No. 170.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

March 7, 1910

George A. Hoffman (Heath Sutherland, of counsel), for appellant.

Arthur von Briesen and Hans von Briesen, for appellee.

Before LACOMBE, WARD, and NOYES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The opinion of Judge Chatfield sets forth the facts with sufficient fullness. It is not necessary to repeat them. A brief statement of our conclusions is sufficient.

In 1876 Almond patented a chuck which commended itself to the trade and commanded a good market during the life of the patent. It was operated by revolving a sleeve in one or the other direction. Nothing was said in the patent as to how it should be thus revolved. In practice this was done either by the unaided fingers, the sleeve being roughened to allow them to grip it, or a spanner was inserted in a hole in the sleeve, and a better purchase thus obtained.

The patent in suit describes a chuck identical with the Almond with the addition of teeth to the edge of the sleeve, these teeth being adapted to mesh with the teeth of a key which may be used to operate the chuck, the end of the key being inserted in one or other of several holes in the body of the chuck. The specification does not indicate how much is new or what is the improvement on the old art. The claims would indicate that the entire device was the product of Jacobs. It is fairly obnoxious to the criticism expressed of a similar obscure and misleading patent in Evans v. Eaton, 7 Wheat. 356, 5 L.Ed. 472. But passing that technical objection we have the question: Is it...