Oregon Woodenware Mfg. Co. v. Murray
| Decision Date | 20 July 1914 |
| Docket Number | 22. |
| Citation | 215 F. 744 |
| Parties | OREGON WOODENWARE MFG. CO. v. MURRAY. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
William R. Litzenberg, of Portland, Or., for complainant.
John P Hartman and Arthur E. Nafe, both of Seattle, Wash., for defendant.
Suit is brought by complainant, holding, by assignment, the Aaron M Springer patent No. 1,012,468, issued December 19, 1911, for a certain folding ironing board. Complainant alleges infringement by defendant, who has answered, assailing the validity of complainant's patent, denying infringement and averring that the ironing board made by him is in conformity with letters patent No. 1,036,887, issued to him August 27, 1912.
The evidence shows invention, novelty, and utility in the Springer patent, independently of the presumption arising from the issuance of the patent. It is therefore unnecessary to consider the question of whether defendant is estopped to deny their existence.
The Springer patent is of a secondary nature, as the advance of the art has been gradual. The claims thereunder should therefore be strictly construed.
There are certain minor changes in the Springer board, as now made, not covered by the patent, but these are mere improvements that have been evolved in the course of manufacture, do not affect the mechanical principles involved, and do not constitute abandonment. These changes and their effect may show an increased utility in the board, but they do not establish that the board, without them, was wanting in utility. In the Springer board, a pair of substantially vertical legs are pivotally connected to the ironing board itself, near one end thereof. The most striking difference between the Springer board and those which preceded it in the art is the fact that to these legs all of the other major members of the structure are pivotally connected, by which means other members found in the prior art are eliminated, simplifying the structure. While all of the separate elements were known to the prior art, the combination was new, and possessed obvious advantages, entitling it to patent. This arrangement is one form of truss structure. The truss structure will be found frequently used in the prior art, but not in this combination. Rigidity, compactness, facility in folding, and lightness, with sufficient strength for practical use, together with other advantages, were accomplished in the Springer board. A portion of these advantages over the former art were undoubtedly accomplished by the exercise of ordinary mechanical skill, as in the selection and use of lighter materials in better proportion; but not all were so accomplished. A part is the result of invention.
This result was brought about generally by the arrangement above noticed, and particularly by means of a brace member which, when the board is in use, holds the inclined leg, which is pivotally connected to the top of the substantially vertical legs, in place, with its foot resting under the clear end of the board. This brace member, not only holds the inclined leg in position with relation to the vertical legs, but, by being pivotally connected to the vertical legs at the point where the thrust of a brace, detachably connected to the lower side of the table top towards its clear end, exerts the force derived from the weight of the table top and the ironing operations thereon, and transfers such force and the weight derived therefrom in due proportion to the foot of the inclined leg. This brace member, attached to the inclined leg, is composed of two parts connected so as to permit the whole structure to be folded compactly.
The ironing boards shown to have been made by the defendant are in accordance with his letters patent. While the presumption is that he is not infringing complainant's patent, it is not conclusive. Holliday v. Pickhardt (C.C.) 12 F. 147; Brainard v. Cramme (C.C.) 12 F. 621; Holly v. Vergennes Mach. Co. (C.C.) 4 Fed. 74, 18 Blatchf. 327; Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 24 L.Ed. 139; Cantrell v. Wallick, 117 U.S. 689, 6 Sup.Ct. 970, 29 L.Ed. 1017.
There are two claims in the Springer patent. In the first claim, this brace member is described as:
'Said last-mentioned brace being formed of two relatively movable sections and serving to limit the spreading apart of the lower ends of said legs.'
And in the second claim as:
'Said last-mentioned brace being formed of two pivotally connected sections and serving to limit the spreading apart of the lower ends of said legs.'
In the manufacture of the boards under the Springer patent, no other connection between the parts of this brace than pivotal has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rid-Jid Products v. Rich Pump & Ladder Co.
...its use. Three-legged collapsible ironing boards were old to the art at the time Springer's patent was granted. Oregon Wooden-Ware Manufacturing Company v. Murray, 215 F. 744, Springer claims that in the prior art, there were no synchronized movements of the under-support of the table by ap......