Matrix Contrast Corporation v. Kellar

Decision Date07 September 1929
Docket NumberNo. 3588.,3588.
Citation34 F.2d 510
PartiesMATRIX CONTRAST CORPORATION et al. v. KELLAR.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

Duell, Dunn & Anderson, of New York City (Holland S. Duell and David A. Woodcock, both of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs.

Frank A. Bower, of New York City, for defendant.

CAMPBELL, District Judge.

This is an action in equity for the alleged infringement of patent No. 1,466,437, issued to Percy L. Hill, deceased, by James W. Anderson, as administrator of the estate of Percy L. Hill, for process for making character carriers for composing machines, granted August 28, 1923, original application filed August 12, 1919, divisional application filed February 5, 1923.

The plaintiffs are Matrix Contrast Corporation, as licensee, and James W. Anderson, as administrator of the estate of Percy L. Hill, deceased, patentee. The defendant is an individual who has interposed an answer, setting up the twofold defense of invalidity and noninfringement.

The line-casting machine art, to which the patent in suit applies, is to-day represented by the Mergenthaler linotype machine, which came on the market 40 years ago, and the intertype machine, which appeared about 12 years ago.

In operating a linotype machine, the operator sits facing a keyboard, which has superficial resemblance to the keyboard of a typewriter. When he strikes a key, one of the matrices having a corresponding letter is released from the magazine and drops down a channel to a conveyor belt, which carries it to a point where a star wheel cam throws the matrix to an assembler or assembling box. The operator similarly brings down the matrices for the other letters and for large spaces between lines, and all are grouped in the assembler. The length of the printed line is positively fixed, and the operator often finds the line unfilled after he has put in all the words and syllables which the line will contain. His remedy is to touch a key, which will bring down one or more thin spaces, until the warning bell or his own observation shows him that the line is full. To prevent leaving the large space at the end of the line, the operator distributes the spaces at intervals throughout the line.

The operator does, when he observes errors and on other occasions, change the location of matrices by hand. The magazines are limited to 90 characters, or less, and the operator is frequently called on to use extra characters, called "side sorts," which he picks by hand from an unclassified tray, called a "pi-tray," or "pi-stacker," which may contain 30 or more different characters or side sorts.

Errors are of frequent occurrence and very costly, and a great saving can be made if the operator can readily observe an error when the matrices are in the assembling box, before the slugs are cast. It is unnecessary to go into detail as to the methods of discovering and correcting errors, it being sufficient to say that the error can best be prevented, and the expense saved, by making it possible for the operator to easily observe what characters are represented by the matrices brought down.

For 30 years the only assistance which was given to the operator was the indentation of a small character in the narrow edge of the matrix, and the provision of an artificial light with a reflecting shield, which directed its beam at the line of matrices in the assembler. The matrices are brass, and because of their use the indentations become filled with grease, the surrounding surfaces discolored and dirty, causing them to look alike. To overcome this, the matrices were cleaned with cleaning fluids, producing a greater evil on a glittering surface, which reflected light rays into the eyes of the operators, with disastrous results to the eyes of the operators, due to eye strain.

The problem which confronted Hill was: (1) To reduce the glare of artificial light reflected from the brass matrices as they stood in the assembler box. (2) To make the matrices legible in such a way that there can be simultaneous verification of an entire line of matrices.

The purposes of the invention are fully set forth in the specification of the patent in suit. The instant suit is based on both claims of the patent in suit, which read as follows:

"1. The process of coloring a light colored metallic matrix adapted for line casting machines and having on its edge an indented indicating character, said process including treating said edge including said indicating character to make the same dark or black and thereafter filling in the indented indicating character with a lighter colored or white pigment.

"2. The process of coloring a light colored metallic matrix adapted for line-casting machines and having on its edge an indented indicating character, said process including treating said edge including said indicating character to deaden the light reflecting quality thereof and also to make the same dark or black, and thereafter filling in the indented indicating character with a pigment of high light reflecting quality and contrasting sharply in color with the resultant treated edge."

Defendant offered no evidence of prior use, and only offered two prior art patents alleged as anticipations:

Patent No. 965,155, issued to George W. Clarke, for matrix-plate, granted July 26, 1910. This patent does not concern the art of linotype or intertype machines. The operation is described in the specification of the patent as follows:

"In operating this system, the matrix plates are not distributed like type, but are spread out indiscriminately on an operating table. This table should preferably be arranged so that the matrix plates 1, 2, 3, by which nearly all the work is done, are kept separate from the other matrix plates which are rarely used. The operator selects the proper matrix plate for each letter by the color, and places them in his left hand, one behind the other, for the proper sequence of letters to form a word. When the matrices of the words of a line have been thus arranged, and their matrix plates suitably spaced, a line is cast therefrom."

From this description of the operation, it is clearly shown that it is confined to handwork, with ample opportunity to observe the character represented, with no glare to contend with and to be overcome, and the use of color to identify the characters on the plate. The colors red and yellow, among those mentioned, would not tend to accomplish the important purpose of reducing the glare. The purpose of the use of the color is entirely different from that of the patent in suit.

Patent No. 744,836, issued to Frank W. Weeks, for type, granted November 24, 1903. This patent is not related to the linotype art. It deals entirely with hand operations, the old hand-set type, and not a matrix. There is no glare of the artificial light of a line-casting machine to overcome, no small indented characters on the narrow edge of a matrix to be observed.

The color in this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • General Foods Corp. v. Perk Foods Company, 64 C 1829.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • February 13, 1968
    ...in terms of function, manner and result. Malignani v. Germania Electric Lamp Co., 169 F. 299, 301 (D.N.J.1909); Matrix Contrast Corp. v. Kellar, 34 F.2d 510, 512 (E.D.N.Y.1929); Hammerschlag Manuf'g. Co. v. Bancroft, 32 F. 585, 589 (N.D.Ill.1887); Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co. v. Refining, Inc.......
  • Pesci v. FA Vieser & Son, E-5903.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • January 31, 1941
    ...metal, thereby facilitating easier reading, was not a patentable invention. Counsel for plaintiffs cite the case of Matrix Contrast Corporation v. Kellar, D.C., 34 F.2d 510, as sustaining their contention — and it does —, but I do not think that the principle therein stated on page 513 of 3......
  • Application of Hunter
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA)
    • June 1, 1948
    ...further, in effect, that he was familiar with the Hill patent which was at one time involved in litigation (See Matrix Contrast Corporation et al. v. Kellar, D. C., 34 F.2d 510) and the Clarke patent and stated "neither I nor anyone else, so far as I know, ever got any suggestion from the H......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT