Jones v. Bodaness

• Decision Date: 21 May 1951
• Docket Number: No. 4173.,4173.
• Citation: 189 F.2d 838
• Parties: JONES et al. v. BODANESS et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

189 F.2d 838 (1951)

JONES et al. v. BODANESS et al.

No. 4173.

United States Court of Appeals. Tenth Circuit.

May 21, 1951.

Max D. Melville and W. A. McGrew, Denver, Colo. (Edward E. Pringle, Denver, Colo., was with them on the brief), for appellants.

Carle Whitehead, Denver, Colo. (Albert L. Vogl, Denver, Colo., was with him on the brief), for appellees.

Before BRATTON, HUXMAN and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.

MURRAH, Circuit Judge.

The appellant brought this suit for infringement of Letters Patent No. 2,279,691, for a new and improved apparatus for washing venetian blinds or the like, referred to as the means patent; and Letters Patent No. 2,199,747, for an improved method for washing venetian blinds, or the like, by the use of the means patent. The latter will be referred to as the method patent.

Both patents are based upon the same drawings and specifications, which in general outline, disclose an undercut channel track suitably supported. A frame, designed to receive and enclose a venetian blind, is adapted to move along the track with the suspended blind between oppositely positioned spray heads. Between the spray heads are mechanically operated scrubbing brushes, mounted for reciprocal contact with the opposite surfaces of the suspended blind as it travels along the track past the spray heads. In operation, the suspended blind with the slats in substantially overlapping relationship, is fastened into the frame at the top and bottom. As it moves past the spray heads, cleansing fluid is forcibly projected against its surfaces, after which the slats in the blind are manually or mechanically reversed along their longitudinal axis in substantially overlapping relationship, and the process of cleaning, scrubbing and rinsing is repeated, after which it proceeds along the track to a drying station, or they may be permitted to air dry, especially if heated rinse water is used.

At the pre-trial conference, after issues were joined, appellants elected to rely upon Claim 1 of the means patent and Claims 5 and 6 of the method patent, as measuring the scope of the invention alleged to be infringed by the accused device. The validity of these claims was conceded, leaving only the issue of infringement.

Claim 1 of the means patent discloses an "apparatus for washing venetian blinds or the like, comprising a track, a frame of an internal size and configuration to receive such a blind, for suspending a blind on the track for movement there along, and blind-sprayers at opposite sides of the track."

Claim 5 of the method patent discloses, "The method of washing venetian blinds or the like having reversible slats, that comprises projecting a spray of cleansing fluid onto the blind with the slats thereof in substantially overlapping relationship, reversing the slats along their longitudinal axis, and repeating the projection of the cleansing fluid onto the blind."

Claim 6 of the method patent discloses, "The method of washing venetian blinds or the like having reversible slats, that comprises scrubbing the surfaces of the blind while the slats are in substantially overlapping relationship, reversing the slats along their longitudinal axis, repeating the scrubbing action, and then impinging rinsing fluid onto the scrubbed surfaces."

In holding these claims uninfringed, the trial court specifically found that no where in the accused device was there a frame "of an internal size and configuration to receive a blind" as described in Claim 1 of the means patent, or the equivalent thereof. It also found that in the operation of the accused device, the slats of the blind being washed or cleaned were never "in substantially overlapping relationship," nor did the accused device employ the patentable step of reversing the slats along their longitudinal axis, nor the step of "repeating the projection of the cleaning fluid into the blind," or the equivalent of any of these steps as disclosed by Claim 5 of the method patent.

The court further found that in the operation of the accused device, there was no scrubbing of the blind with the slats "in substantially overlapping relationship" and no repetition of the scrubbing action; no impinging of cleansing fluid onto the scrubbed surface, or the equivalent of any such steps as disclosed in Claim 6 of the method patent. From the history in the Patent Office as disclosed by the file wrappers, the court found that in the prosecution of the application for the patents, the applicants had limited their claims in suit to obtain their allowance.

The accused apparatus comprises a track, as in the patents in suit; an overhead conveyor on which a suspended blind is moved between oppositely positioned spray heads, where cleaning fluid is forcibly projected on the surface of the blind. In operation, the blind is hung on the overhead conveyor by means of "hooks," one end of which catches the top rail of the blind, and the other the conveyor chain. With the blind thus suspended from the top and free at the bottom, and with the slats either horizontal or partially closed, it travels on the conveyor past the spray heads, positioned at vertical levels, to project a horizontal spray from the opposite sides of the blind. The blind travels from the cleaning spray to the rinsing chamber, where in the same manner it is subjected to a rinsing spray, hence to the drying chamber for the final cleaning process.

While the appellants concede that the accused device does not employ a frame in the literal sense, it does contend that the "hooks" on which the blinds are hung perform the same function in substantially the same way, and...