Lein v. Myers
| Decision Date | 06 December 1900 |
| Docket Number | 7. |
| Citation | 105 F. 962 |
| Parties | LEIN v. MYERS et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
M. E Robinson, for appellants.
Clifton V. Edwards, for appellee.
Before LACOMBE and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges.
The patent is for a mattress frame, and was issued to complainant November 29, 1898, upon an application filed August 7, 1897. The specification states that the object of the improvement is to construct a simple and inexpensive frame, in which the smallest possible surface will be exposed to the accumulation of dust, dirt, or vermin, and in which the weight put upon the mattress will be so distributed as to be directed against all parts, and in which the greater the weight the more firmly will the frame be held together. The device comprises a corner bracket in which the side rails and end bars are inserted. Of this bracket the specification states:
On November 3, 1896 (upon application filed August 10, 1896), a patent for a design for a corner block for mattress frames was issued to one Taber (design No. 26,245). It is conceded by complainant that the subject-matter of the first claim of the patent in suit is disclosed in this design patent. To avoid the defense which this design patent establishes, it is necessary for complainant to show that his invention antedates the date of his application by several months. The burden of proving this is upon complainant, and we are unable to concur with the judge who heard the cause at circuit that he has borne such burden. Such evidence, especially when it deals with experiments which resulted only in some two or three specimens, which never left the shop, and were seen years before by but a few persons, who, in giving their recollections of dates, are unable to fix such dates by reference to some transaction whose date is susceptible of definite proof, is rarely satisfactory. Before discussing this testimony, it may be noted that it deals with two different groups of devices, an 'earlier pattern' and 'earlier casting,' and a 'later pattern' and 'later casting.' The judge at circuit was of the opinion that the earlier device embodied the invention of the first claim. We have reached a different conclusion, not finding in it the 'part adapted to engage the upper surface of the side rails,' which the specification refers to as an extension backwardly a suitable distance, thus securing a bearing surface adapted to give the strength of structure and distribution of weight, which was the object sought for. The crucial fact, therefore, which complainant must establish by persuasive proof, is a date for the 'later' pattern or casting prior to November 3, 1896.
Complainant's application is sworn to July 19, 1897. His concern moved into a new factory on Second avenue in December, 1894. His narrative of what took place between these fixed dates is as follows: Shortly after he got settled in the new quarters (Second avenue), it being a dull season, he made sketches experimented, and, having finally settled upon a plan, made patterns, which he got completed somewhere about March or April, 1895 (before the busy season, which was usually in April or May). Shortly after the patterns were completed, castings were made of composition. After these were made, he got the tubular side rails ready, and the frame was assembled into a spring (the trade-name for a completed spring mattress), and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Mach. Corp., Inc. v. Benthall Mach. Co., Inc.
...Co. et al. v. Interchangeable Brake Beam Co., 106 F. 693, 45 C.C.A. 544, Buser v. Novelty Co., 151 F. 478, 81 C.C.A. 16, Lein v. Myers, 105 F. 962, 45 C.C.A. 148, Washburn v. Beat 'Em All Barbed Wire Co., 143 U.S. 275, 12 Sup.Ct. 443, 36 L.Ed. 154, are to the same effect. The complainant at......
-
HC White Co. v. Morton E. Converse & Son Co.
...for the attempted distinctions between the two disclosures appear to us trivial. A design patent may anticipate a mechanical, Lein v. Myers, 105 F. 962 (C. C. A. 2); and if both issue to the same inventor we may assume without deciding that it will be a case of double patenting, Cary v. Nea......
-
Waring Products Corp. v. Landers, Frary & Clark
...a mechanical patent, or a mechanical patent, issued before a design patent, is part of the prior art, and a valid anticipation. Lein v. Myers, 2 Cir., 105 F. 962; Bradley v. Eccles, 2 Cir., 126 F. 945, 949-50; Roberts v. Bennett, 2 Cir., 136 F. 193; Electro Mfg. Co. v. Yellin, 7 Cir., 132 F......
-
In re Hargraves
...17 C. C. P. A. 582; In re Staunton, 35 F.(2d) 63, 17 C. C. P. A. 579; In re Rutledge, 47 F.(2d) 797, 18 C. C. P. A. 1081; Lein v. Myers et al. (C. C. A.) 105 F. 962; White Co. v. Converse & Son Co. (C. C. A.) 20 F.(2d) 311. See, also, cases hereinafter While it is true, as a matter of law, ......