Knight v. UNION HARDWARE CO.
| Decision Date | 18 July 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 1860.,1860. |
| Citation | 27 F.2d 946 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | KNIGHT et al. v. UNION HARDWARE CO. |
Melville Church and Clarence B. Des Jardins, of Washington, D. C., and William J. Malone, of Bristol, Conn., for plaintiffs.
Robert Starr Allyn and Hyland R. Johns, both of New York City, and Clarence W. Bronson, of New Haven, Conn., for defendant.
The bill in this case charges infringement of United States letters patent No. 976,267, issued November 22, 1910, to Arthur F. Knight, for improvements in golf clubs. The plaintiffs are the patentee, who owns a seven-eighths interest in the patent, Benjamin B. Hull, who owns the remaining one-eighth interest, and the Horton Manufacturing Company of Bristol, Conn., which, by virtue of an exclusive license, manufactures golf club shafts under the patent in suit.
The defenses are (1) noninvention; (2) invalidity, due to prior knowledge by others; and (3) noninfringement.
In the specification the patentee says that the object of his invention is "to produce a golf club in which the line of flight of the ball may more truly conform to the direction of the blow delivered by the player."
It is asserted by the patentee that prior to his invention golf clubs were constructed by securing the head of the club to a wooden shaft, usually of a highly elastic wood, such as selected seasoned hickory, tapering to a comparatively small section near the head and much stouter at the handle end, and that hickory has uniformly been preferred on account of its hardness, toughness, and suppleness; the latter quality being very important in controlling the rebound of the head after the powerful impact with the ball and adding to the distance of the drive. The patentee claims to have discovered that there is an inherent objection in a hickory shaft, because the wood is fibrous in nature, and therefore offers but slight resistance to torsional strain, in consequence of which the head of the club yields in a line circumferential to the axis of the shaft, or, in other words, the blow produces a strong torsional strain, which twists the hickory shaft. This torsional element is alleged to be highly objectionable, since an angular rebound causes the ball to deviate from the direction of impact, so that, unless the golf player knows how to offset this inherent tendency of the club, his play will be uncertain and irregular.
In order to overcome this tendency or defect, the patentee seeks to provide a construction which is practically torsionless, by making the shaft of steel tubing, preferably hardened and tempered to give as great suppleness as desired. The tubing, as described in the specification, may be cylindrical, although a tapered or stepped tube is preferred. The patentee furthermore states that high carbon steel is preferred in making the tube, and that it may be tempered so as to increase the resistance to torsional strain. The tube may be case-hardened with improved results, or nickel steel may be used; the latter being known to be of high torsional resistance.
The patentee goes on to say that "my invention consists of a golf club * * * provided with a torsionless tubular shaft and preferably one of rigid and highly elastic steel tubing."
He further asserts in the specification "that the essential feature of my invention is the nontorsional tubular characteristic of the shaft, and in carrying out this object any suitable metal, alloy, or material might be employed which has a great freedom from torsional yield."
Claims 3 and 4 are in issue, and read as follows:
These claims are written in plain everyday language, so that, under ordinary circumstances, no reference would have to be made to the specification of the patent to interpret the same. The defendant asserts, however, that unless certain limitations are read into the claims, in view of the procedure followed in the Patent Office, both claims are invalid, in view of the prior art, and that, even with these limitations, their validity is highly questionable.
The file wrapper and contents of the patent in suit show that the claims were originally rejected by the Patent Office on the Hornsburgh British patent, No. 8,603 of 1894, and the Horton United States patent No. 359,153, issued March 8, 1887. The patentee thereupon amended his specification, and represented to the Patent Office that the chief requirement of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial