Laufenberg, Inc. v. Goldblatt Bros.

• Decision Date: 10 February 1950
• Docket Number: No. 9962.,9962.
• Citation: 179 F.2d 832
• Parties: LAUFENBERG, Inc. v. GOLDBLATT BROS., Inc.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

179 F.2d 832 (1950)

LAUFENBERG, Inc. v. GOLDBLATT BROS., Inc.

No. 9962.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

February 10, 1950.

Ira Milton Jones, Milwaukee, Wis., Jules L. Brady, Bradford Wiles, Chicago, Ill. (Schroeder, Merriam, Hofgren & Brady, Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellant.

L. B. Mann, Chicago, Ill. (Pennie, Edmonds, Morton & Barrows, New York City, of counsel), for appellee.

Before MAJOR, Chief Judge, and DUFFY and LINDLEY, Circuit Judges.

LINDLEY, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff brought suit for infringement of its three patents, Wimmer, No. 1,863,211, Herodes et al., No. 2,180,902 and Laufenberg, No. D-150,306. Before trial it withdrew Wimmer and all claims of Herodes except claim 2. The court directed that the dismissal as to Wimmer and as to claims 1, 3, 4 and 5 of Herodes be with prejudice. At the conclusion of the trial, the court held both Laufenberg and Herodes invalid and claim 2 of Herodes if valid, not infringed. Plaintiff appealed from so much of the judgment as decreed the Laufenberg patent and claims 1, 3, 4 and 5 of Herodes invalid. It does not appeal from that part of the judgment adjudging claim 2 of Herodes invalid or, if valid, not infringed. In this state of the record, we are confronted with the questions, (1), whether the trial court rightfully held the Laufenberg patent invalid, and, (2), whether it erred in holding the entire patent of Herodes invalid after dismissal of 4 claims and, if so, whether the circumstances of record are such that the case has become moot as to Herodes.

The Laufenberg patent covers a design of a drip tray adapted to be installed beneath and fit closely to the bottom of the flush tank of a watercloset to catch the condensed moisture which forms on the sides and bottom of the tank when the temperature is warm and humid and which, if not captured, falls upon the bathroom floor. A tube drains the water from the tray into the toilet bowl.

Herodes preceded Laufenberg. He claimed to have invented a novel and useful drip tray, and the article manufactured under his patent, is for all intent and purposes, the exact duplicate of what was later designed by Laufenberg except that the latter placed in his tray two grooves for draining the liquid, running diagonally toward each other from two opposite corners, forming an enlarged "V" and uniting at the outlet. Laufenberg showed rounded corners and Herodes, rectangular or nearly rectangular ones. The specific shape of the corners of either, of course, as constructed, would depend upon the maker's choice between rounded and square corners, depending upon the contour of the periphery of the bottom of the watercloset tank to which the tray was to be attached. In other words, the shape of the tray preferably should conform to that of the tank. Obviously there was no invention involved in thus shaping the corners of the tray to conform to those of the tank, either in utility or in design.

True, the two drainage canals, along which the water passes to the opening where it drains into the rubber tube, were added by Laufenberg. In a utilitarian patent this obvious expedient for draining, found in the ordinary meat platter on the dining table, would certainly not satisfy the standards of invention contemplated by our statute. Plaintiff insists, however, that his design is of aesthetic value, that it is a thing of art and beauty, and that this is true in spite of the fact that Herodes did everything that Laufenberg did except provide the canals for drainage. It is upon this latter feature of alleged novelty that plaintiff relies to sustain its claim of an inventive design.

The District Court thought that anyone who was trying to produce a pan to catch the moisture which might condense upon and drip from a toilet tank would very probably and without much thought, arrive at a design similar to that which the patentee described. We agree; we think the patentee failed to achieve invention in this design, the only new feature of which was the so-called streamlining of the canals. Obviously, the canals are hidden when attached to the tank, but plaintiff insists that they supply an aesthetic appeal to the housewife buying on the market. Be that as it may, we agree with the District Court in its conclusion that this did not constitute invention "To entitle a party to the benefit of the Statute, 35 U.S.C.A. § 31, the device must not only be new, but inventively new. The readaptation of old devices or forms, however convenient, useful, or beautiful they may be in their new roles, is not invention. Smith v. Whitman Saddle Co., 148 U.S. 674, 13 S.Ct. 768, 37 L.Ed. 606." Howell Co. v. Royal Metal Mfg. Co., 7 Cir., 93 F.2d 112, at page 113. As we have said previously, "* * * The law applicable does not differ from that governing mechanical patents. To entitle an applicant to the benefit of the act, in either case, there must be originality, — exercise of the inventive faculty. In the one must appear creative novelty and utility; in the other creative originality in artistry. Mere mechanical skill, whether of the artisan or of the artist, is insufficient. * * *" See also North British Rubber Co., Ltd. v. Racine Rubber Tire Co., 2 Cir., 271 F. 936, at pages 938 and 939; H. D. Smith & Co. v. Peck et al., 2 Cir., 262 F. 415, at pages 418 and 419. We conclude the District Court rightfully held that the...