Magarian v. Detroit Products Co.
| Decision Date | 15 July 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 9811.,9811. |
| Citation | 128 F.2d 544 |
| Parties | MAGARIAN v. DETROIT PRODUCTS CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Adelbert Schapp, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Fred H. Miller, of Los Angeles, Cal. (James M. Naylor, of San Francisco, Cal., of counsel), for appellee.
Before WILBUR, GARRECHT, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.
Involved here are patents No. 2,153,634 for a signal arm, and No. D-109,148, covering the design of the same contrivance. These patents were applied for in November, 1937, the design patent being issued April 5, 1938, and the utility patent a year later. On the trial below for infringement the court held both patents invalid for want of invention. The patentee appeals.
1. The utility patent is for an improved mechanical arm of the familiar type used on motor trucks and buses, the purpose of which is to give warning of changes in the direction or speed of the vehicle. Colored reflectors are mounted on the signal arm in such way as to form a line extending in the same direction as the arm.
Three claims are involved. Claim 1 embraces (a) two identical elongated plates having registering marginal flanges and spaced body portions with registering openings; (b) lenses having flanges bearing upon the inner margins of the openings and having body portions projecting through the openings; (c) a separator (commonly made of cork or paper) between the lenses, and means for securing the flanges of the plates together whereby the body portions of the plates are made to clamp the lenses upon the separator, the lenses having shaped inner faces to produce desired reflecting effects and the separator serving to prevent play between the lenses and the plates. Claim 3 is substantially the same except that it calls for a plurality of lens openings in each plate, in alignment with those of the other plate. It prescribes a common separator coextensive with the lens-receiving space. Claim 4 is identical with 3, the only added provision being that the faces of the body sections are parallel "so as to exert uniform pressure on the interposed lenses and the separator".
As indicated in the specifications, the inner surface of each lens has pyramidal projections designed to reflect light rays in the direction from which they come. In practice appellant uses the patented Stimsonite lens, making, however, no serious claim to invention on the score of the employment of that lens. The specifications describe the lenses as being of a shape elongated in the direction of the arm "so as to aid in conveying directional information." It is further recited that, preferably, the lenses are "made substantially oval or elliptical in shape." Such is the shape of the lenses shown in the drawings. The claims themselves do not specify the shape either of the lenses or of the openings in the plates, but the parties appear to assume that the claims should be construed as embracing the use of the oblong lenses. For the purpose of the decision we make the same assumption.
The prime patentable novelty claimed for the device is simplicity in manufacture and in the method of assembly. In assembling, one plate is placed in a horizontal position with its inner side up, a set of lenses is dropped into place, a separator is placed on top of the lenses, a duplicate set of lenses is positioned on top of the separator, the second plate is applied, and the two plates are then riveted at the flanges. A compact unit results, with slight chance of any part becoming loose or out of place. Another advantage is said to lie in the reflecting characteristics of the lens employed and in the fact that the elongated lenses tend to accentuate the directional information given by the position of the arm. Appellant stresses, also, the attractive appearance of the arm.
The trial court found that claim 1 was anticipated by a structure admittedly made and sold by appellant in 1935, more than two years prior to the filing of his application. The other two claims were likewise...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jaybee Mfg. Corp. v. Ajax Hardware Mfg. Corp., 16858.
...point of view, conclusively shows an advance in design. However, not every advance flows from creative genius. Magarian v. Detroit Products Co., 9 Cir., 1942, 128 F.2d 544. It has been said that such an advance is more often to be credited to the normal progress which results when discrimin......
-
Big" G" Distributing Co. v. Air Cleaner Service Co.
...7 Cir., 159 F.2d 972; Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Device Corp., 314 U.S. 84, 62 S.Ct. 37, 86 L.Ed. 58; Magarian v. Detroit Products Co., 9 Cir., 128 F.2d 544, 545; Dunbar v. Myers, 94 U.S. 187, 24 L.Ed. 34; Butex Gas Co. v. Southern Steel Co., 5 Cir., 123 F.2d 954. We think it abund......
-
Patriarca Mfg., Inc. v. Sosnick
...constitute something new, different and original in the art. As the Court of Appeals for this circuit held in Magarian v. Detroit Products Co., 9 Cir., 1942, 128 F. 2d 544, 545: "It may readily be conceded, as appellant contends, that the design of the arm is streamlined and pleasing in app......
-
Page v. Myers
...is produced or an old function is performed in a new way. Bailey v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 9 Cir., 115 F.2d 904, 906; Magarian v. Detroit Products Co., 9 Cir., 128 F.2d 544, 545. The test enounced by the latter two cases is a converse statement of the Webster Loom case rule. In these two cases......