National Steel Corporation v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
Decision Date | 15 June 1970 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 18371. |
Citation | 313 F. Supp. 934 |
Parties | NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD and Armco Steel Corporation., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Paul T. O'Neil, W. Cecil Townsend, and Shanley & O'Neil, Washington, D. C., and Michael P. Crocker and Piper & Marbury, Baltimore, Md., for plaintiff.
John W. Melville, Charles H. Melville, and Melville, Strasser, Foster & Hoffman, Cincinnati, Ohio, and Robert M. Thomas and Venable, Baetjer & Howard, Baltimore, Md., for defendants.
In this patent action, plaintiff here claims infringement of United States Patent No. 2,667,243, relating to a steel flooring for railway freight cars into which nails can be driven and removed. The patent in question was originally granted to Harry D. Fenske on January 26, 1954 and was thereafter assigned to and is now owned by National Steel Corporation, the plaintiff.
National Steel claims that the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, one of the defendants, is guilty of direct infringement of this patent under 35 U.S. C. § 271(a) and that Armco Steel Corporation, the other defendant, is guilty of inducing infringement by the B. & O. under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and of contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).1 The plaintiff seeks an injunction against infringement of the Fenske patent, an accounting, damages and other relief. The usual defenses of invalidity and non-infringement have been asserted by the defendants and in addition the defendant Armco denies inducement of infringement and contributory infringement.
The patent in suit
Only Claim 1 of the patent is involved in this case. What is claimed is as follows:
In essence, the combination claimed included a conveying supporting structure and metallic floor construction made of a number of long, narrow, metallic structural members with means to form a slot to receive nails, means for deforming and retaining nails driven into the slot and a closure means of mastic material. Each metallic structural member included a freight engaging face, a pair of side reinforcing webs and a flange joined to at least one web on each structural member.
According to the specifications, it had been the practice in the past in freight conveyances such as wooden railroad freight cars to prevent freight from shifting by nailing stop blocks to the floors and walls of the cars. However, this practice contributed to the destruction of wooden floors because of re-nailing and wearing conditions from the freight. Furthermore, cargoes such as loose grain and sand would sift through the nail holes and cracks started by nail holes. The specifications accordingly stated that objects of the invention were to provide for freight conveyances a new and improved all metallic nailable interior surface structure which would stand hard usage without need of periodic repair, to provide further a structure which was economical to manufacture and construct and also to provide an interior surface structure which would make a freight conveyance suitable for carrying loose or unpackaged cargoes such as grain and sand without danger of such loose material sifting through nail slots. An essential part of the invention was therefore a closure means of mastic material which would fill each nailing slot to substantially the level of the surface of the floor. According to the specifications, any mastic or gummy material might be used as filler closing the nailing slots "to prevent loss of loose material freight through the nailing slots."
It is defendants' position that this combination patent is invalid because of obviousness. In asserting this defense, defendants rely on 35 U.S.C. § 103, which provides as follows:
The requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 103 that a patent to be valid must be non-obvious was discussed by the Supreme Court in both Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 86 S.Ct. 684, 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966) and in United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 86 S.Ct. 708, 15 L.Ed.2d 572 (1966). In the Graham case the Supreme Court said the following at pages 17-18, 86 S.Ct. at p. 69:
The inquiry to be made by the Court is primarily a factual one. Graham v. John Deere Co., supra, 383 U.S. at p. 5, 86 S.Ct. 684; Diversified Products Corporation v. Sports Stores, Inc., 294 F.Supp. 375, 380 (D.Md.1968). Furthermore, it is well settled that an invention is construed not only in the light of the claims but also with reference to the file wrapper or prosecution history in the Patent Office. Graham v. John Deere Co., supra, 383 U.S. at p. 33, 86 S.Ct. 684.
Examination of the record of the prosecution of the patent in suit indicates that its history was a long and tortuous one. The application that was finally granted was filed February 16, 1946 (almost 8 years before the patent was issued) and was stated to be a continuation in part of an earlier application filed by the same inventor on January 12, 1945 and thereafter abandoned. After successive rejections of all claims on three prior occasions followed by various amendments by the applicant and the addition of new claims, the patent examiner finally rejected all claims on August 14, 1951. The applicant thereupon further amended his application and at the same time filed an appeal to the Board of Appeals with reference to six claims. After full briefing, the Board of Appeals heard oral argument on November 24, 1952 and in a written decision dated December 19, 1952 affirmed the primary examiner's rejection of all six claims. The applicant then filed a petition for reconsideration with respect to only two claims, namely Nos. 30 and 33, together with a brief in support of such petition. Without further hearing, the Board of Appeals on February 24, 1953 reversed its earlier decision and granted the petition as to these claims, which after further amendment became the two claims of the patent in suit which became effective on January 26, 1954.
In his final rejection of all claims in the amended application, the primary examiner had relied upon the following patents:
Inventor Device Number Issuance Date Buelow Structural 1,900,541 Mar. 7, 1933 element Main Structural 2,028,554 Jan. 21, 1936 element Marks Floor and 2,084,853 June 22, 1937 ceiling Bradfield Metal floor...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ab Iro v. Otex, Inc.
... ... corporation of Sweden, is the owner by assignment 566 F ... Citizens & Southern National Bank, 407 F.2d 557 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ... 1227, 1229 (D.S. C.1971); National Steel Corp. v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 313 F.Supp. 934, ... ...
-
Diamond International Corp. v. Maryland Fresh Eggs, Inc.
... ... DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a corporation of Delaware, ... MARYLAND FRESH ... Avirett, II and Paul V. Niemeyer, Baltimore, Md., Karl W. Flocks and Sheridan Neimark, ... Brinkman, Jr., Cincinnati, Ohio, for defendant ... WATKINS, ... 305, 24 L.Ed.2d 258 (1969); and National Steel Corporation v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, ... ...
-
Aghnides v. FW Woolworth Company
... ... Richard S. Wright, Baltimore, Md. and William D. Hall, Washington, D. C., for ... See, National Steel Corp. v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 313 ... ...
-
Ward Machinery Co. v. WM. C. STALEY MACH. CORP.
... ... WM. C. STALEY MACHINERY CORPORATION, Defendant ... Civ. No. 72-683-H ... United ... C., Walter G. Finch, Baltimore, Md., and 409 F. Supp. 274 Marvin Petry, ... Similarly, in National Steel Corporation v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, ... ...