Linscott Supply Co. v. Hopewell
| Decision Date | 13 February 1914 |
| Docket Number | 1033. |
| Parties | LINSCOTT SUPPLY CO. v. HOPEWELL. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts; Frederic Dodge, Judge.
Suit in equity by Charles F. Hopewell against the Linscott Supply Company. Decree for complainant, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
PATENTS (s 328*)-- INVENTION-- ANNULAR TIRE CASE.
The Hopewell patent, No. 854,215, and the Kinder patent, No 881,411, each for a cover or case for spare tires carried on automobiles, to protect them from water and dirt, consisting of an enveloping strip or ring of any suitable material of a width sufficient to inclose the tire and overlap its tread face and one of its sides, and having at its edge a pocket through which a gathering cord is run to hold the cover in place, both held void for lack of patentable invention.
William K. Richardson, of Boston, Mass. (Edwin P. Corbett, of Columbus, Ohio, on the brief), for appellant.
W. Orison Underwood, of Boston, Mass. (Clarence C. Colby, of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PUTNAM and BINGHAM, Circuit Judges, and ALDRICH, District judge.
The Hopewell and Kinder patents at issue relate to a case, or cover, designed for the protection of spare tires carried on automobiles. The Hopewell patent is numbered 854,215, and the Kinder patent is numbered 881,411.
The case, or cover, is described as one which shall twice overlap the tread-face of the tire and one side thereof. The purpose of the cover in question is to protect the tire against water and dirt, and the claims, speaking generally, cover an annular tire case adapted to overlap.
It is said in the specification of the Hopewell patent:
'It will be noticed that the tire case is ring-shaped, or made as a ring; that is, without an end.'
It is urged on one side that the feature of an endless cover involves an essential idea, and one which should be accepted as presenting a substantial element of a patentable invention; while, on the other hand, it is contended that it is not an element of substance; that it was not so considered by Hopewell at the time he applied for a patent; and that if it had been deemed an essential element the idea of an endless strip would have been expressed in some of the claims.
There is considerable weight in the proposition that, if Hopewell had relied upon the endless feature as one of substance, he would have used the word 'endless' in his claims, as for instance, 'an annular, endless tire case.' But, for the purposes of decision, we may as well assume, in view of the statement in the specification, that the claims as explained cover a tire case without an end.
Hopewell intended that the tire case should be made of any suitable material, preferably waterproof or water-repellant material, to be composed of several pieces so united as to form a strip of proper length to cover the circumference of the tread of the tire, and of a width to inclose the tire and twice overlap its tread-face and one of its sides. It was intended that the edge of the strips so made should have a pocket to contain a cord of any suitable flexible material, which upon a pull, or upon contraction, if the cord used should be longitudinally elastic, would hold the edge of the case in proper position to protect the tire. It is highly probable that the principal thought of Hopewell, and Kinder as well, related to the idea of overlapping and to the contracting cord which should bring the edges of the strip, formed to cover the tread of the outer circle, into a circle smaller than the outer circumference of the tire. The cord used for such a purpose performs the function of holding the overlapping strip in such a position as will exclude or minimize damage from water and other material. It is hardly conceivable that much importance could have been attached to the familiar idea of joining the ends of a strip to be drawn around a fixed and determinate circle as a substantial element of an invention; and, as has already been said, the principal thought must have had reference to the shaping of the strip and its adaptation to the outer and inner circles through the instrumentalities of a contracting cord.
In the specification the strip is spoken of as having a pocketed edge and the cord, which is to be of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- In re Walker Grain Co.
-
Knight v. UNION HARDWARE CO.
...invention. National Safety Lift Co. v. Anderson (C. C. A.) 276 F. 696; Andrews v. Thum (C. C. A.) 67 F. 911, 913; Linscott Supply Co. v. Hopewell (C. C. A.) 212 F. 403; Thompson v. Boisselier, 114 U. S. 1, 12, 5 S. Ct. 1042, 29 L. Ed. Of course, it must be held that the patentee was the fir......
- In re Wright-Dana Hardware Co.
-
MARLBORO WIRE GOODS CO. v. HOME ACCESSORIES CO.
...invention. National Safety Lift Co. v. Anderson (C. C. A.) 276 F. 696; Andrews v. Thum (C. C. A.) 67 F. 911, 913; Linscott Supply Co. v. Hopewell (C. C. A.) 212 F. 403. Then again the evidence shows that the plaintiff's patent relates to a much refined and crowded art, and that the patentee......