Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Calehuff Supply Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 13 June 1918 |
| Docket Number | 2360. |
| Citation | 251 F. 598 |
| Parties | MOTION PICTURE PATENTS CO. v. CALEHUFF SUPPLY CO., Inc. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Melville Church, of Washington, D.C., George F. Scull, of New York City, and Cyrus N. Anderson, of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
Ladner & Ladner, of Philadelphia, Pa. (Oscar W. Jeffrey and W. B Morton, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON, McPHERSON, and WOOLLEY, Circuit Judges.
In this action the defendant is charged with infringement of plaintiff's patent No. 707,934, granted to Woodville Latham, August 26, 1902, for a Projecting Kinetoscope. The court found claim 7 of the patent-- which was the only one in issue-- invalid, and dismissed the bill. 248 F. 724. The plaintiff appealed.
The defences at the trial were: (1) Invalidity of the patent by reason of prior patents and prior inventions, (2) estoppel by virtue of certain Patent Office proceedings, and (3) non-infringement. Infringement was later admitted. As the issue of estoppel is subordinate to that of validity, we shall address our discussion to the validity of the patent.
A very brief summary of the art of moving picture mechanism is necessary to an understanding of Latham's contribution.
The practical art began with Edison. He is, without doubt, its founder. He solved its fundamental problems by evolving a theory, which, with its picture proportions and time movements, has been accepted by the art and has been practiced almost without deviation from the day of its disclosure.
Edison found, in taking or projecting a series of separate pictures that it is necessary (in order to give the illusion of continuous and uninterrupted movement) to make an actual interruption in the movement of the picture medium for a time that will permit the separate exposure of each picture but will prevent the eye detecting the interruption. This time though almost infinitesimal, is measured with nice calculation by the varying sensitiveness of the picture medium and the retina of the human eye.
Edison's first contribution was the medium or particular vehicle on which moving pictures can be carried. This is a sensitized film invented by another but adapted by Edison to receive and project pictures in sequence, the edges of the film being perforated so that it can be moved across the lens aperture of the camera or projector with a predetermined motion. He conformed the perforations of the film to the sprocket rotary mechanism of his next invention. This was a device for taking or projecting pictures in series. This mechanism consisted of two reels or drums placed apart, one above the other. They were respectively film delivering and film receiving reels. Between them was placed a rotary means, being a wheel with sprockets, which, in its rotation, developed the Geneva intermittent movement, and, by its sprocket engagement with the film perforations, drew the film from the delivering reel to the camera lens where it stopped an instant for exposure and then passed it on to the receiving reel. The intermittent rotary member was geared with a multiple blade shutter, which synchronized with the film as it intermittently passed the lens, thereby bringing the film to a positive stop before the shutter opened, causing a stationary though instantaneous exposure of the picture through the shutter aperture when it opened, and resuming the movement upon the closing of the shutter, to be repeated so rapidly that a succession of pictures projected upon a screen gave the illusion of motion.
Edison's contributions, though very simple, were so complete that their fundamental characteristics have not been improved upon by the art. The art still uses the Edison perforated film and the Edison sprocket rotary mechanism. Such improvements as have been made relate chiefly to exposure problems, and to problems of carrying films of increased length to project pictures in a correspondingly greater series.
At the time of Edison's invention, a moving picture display was of short duration. The film was only about 50 feet long and its weight was inconsiderable. A film of this length and weight responded readily and accurately to Edison's intermittent movement mechanism. Since then, however, the public has demanded exhibitions on a larger scale and the art has responded by supplying films of a thousand feet or more containing many thousand pictures.
The increased length of films increased their weight and raised a problem that was not present when Edison was dealing with short films. The inertia of the greatly increased weight of long films when wound on the Edison delivering reel disturbed the accuracy of exposure registration of Edison's intermittent movement mechanism by jarring or jerking the film and throwing it out of alignment with the lens and shutter, thereby producing pictures with irregular and imperfect spacing. To the solution of this problem, without dispensing with the admittedly necessary elements of Edison's inventions, many inventors applied their talents. Among them was Latham.
Latham's projecting mechanism is a combination of elements which are not very intelligibly shown in the claim of the patent in suit. [1]
The several elements are vertically arranged. Omitting for the sake of clarity idlers and rolls which are not pertinent to this controversy, the first two elements are reels for carrying the film, placed apart one above the other. One is the delivering reel; the other the receiving or take-up reel. The next are two sprocket wheels or toothed drums placed apart, but in close relation respectively to each reel. These sprocket wheels have an uniform continuous rotary motion.
Located between the two continuous rotary members near the center of the alignment is another sprocket wheel or toothed drum, which has an intermittent rotary motion. Both continuous rotary members and the intermittent rotary member are so geared that their rotation is direct and equal.
The film is drawn at the start from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Berghane v. Radio Corp. of America
...apparatus of the combination claim the same function it performed in the device from which it was taken, Motion pictures Patents Co. v. Calehuff, 3 Cir., 251 F. 598, 602; that is, each does its own work in its own section and is through. * * * It follows that the effect of the operation of ......
-
Cold Metal Process Co. v. AMERICAN SHEET & TIN P. CO.
...v. Tri-Ergon Corporation, 294 U. S. 477, at page 486, 55 S.Ct. 455, 458, 79 L.Ed. 1005. See, also, Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Calehuff Supply Co., Inc., 3 Cir., 251 F. 598, 602, 603; J. F. Rowley Co. v. Rowley, 6 Cir., 39 F.2d 865; Fisher Governor Co., Inc. v. C. F. Camp Co., 10 Cir., 40......
-
Southern Phosphate Corp. v. Phosphate Recovery Corp.
...result or has a wider range of use than was before known." This court has so held a number of times. Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Calehuff Supply Co., Inc., 3 Cir., 251 F. 598, 602; Guardian Trust Co. et al., v. Downingtown Mfg. Co., 3 Cir., 29 F.2d 887, 889, 890; United States Hoffman Mac......
-
Ware v. Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Co.
...220, 28 L.Ed. 222; Mast, Foos & Co. v. Stover Manufacturing Co., 177 U.S. 485, 20 S.Ct. 708, 44 L.Ed. 856; Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Calehuff Supply Co., Inc. (C.C.A.) 251 F. 598; Guardian Trust Co. v. Downington Manufacturing Co. (C.C.A.) 29 F.(2d) 887. It follows that the patent must ......