Oswell v. Bloomfield
| Decision Date | 24 June 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 7085.,7085. |
| Citation | 113 F.2d 377 |
| Parties | OSWELL v. BLOOMFIELD et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Walter J. Sampson and Max Richard Kraus, both of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Albert G. McCaleb, Arthur Nelson Cornell, Thos. F. McWilliams, all of Chicago, Ill., for appellees.
Before SPARKS, TREANOR, and KERNER, Circuit Judges.
Appellant charged appellees with the infringement of United States Patent No. 1,983,187 to Oswell. The patent was issued on December 4, 1934, upon an application filed April 23, 1934. The defenses were invalidity and non-infringement. Claim 1 was in issue, and the court found that it was invalid for lack of invention.1 It is also found that the claim was not anticipated by the patents set up in the defendants' answer; that the claim was for a combination and not for an aggregation; and that it was infringed by the defendants' device. From that part of the decree which holds the claim invalid, this appeal is prosecuted.
The patent in suit relates to a lunch counter set-up rack for holding in proper position sugar bowls, pepper and salt shakers, sauce bottles and the like, and also for receiving and holding menu cards in convenient position. Its object is to provide a rack which is relatively simple in construction, inexpensive to manufacture, and convenient to be applied to or removed from the counter, thus permitting the counter to be washed, painted or finished. The device, insofar as it is designed to perform the function of keeping the condiment containers and the like in place, consists of two pairs of uprights detachably secured to a counter and spaced apart, with a series of horizontally disposed rails secured to the uprights. The outer ends of these rails are bent inwardly to provide an enclosure for the condiment containers and the like, and to prevent them from being accidentally knocked from the counter. The menu-receiving portion of the device is a spring of resilient metal between the members of each set of uprights. The intermediate portions of these springs are bent toward and normally engage directly against the intermediate portions of the inner upright of each set in order to engage with pressure against the menu cards that are inserted between the two upright members of each set. Thus, the condiment containers and the like are positioned against the rack between the curved ends of the lower rails and the menu cards are inserted between the two members of each pair of uprights, and are yieldingly held in such position by the pressure of the springs.
The District Court held the claim invalid for lack of invention over certain exhibits introduced in evidence by defendants. Some of these exhibits were United States Patents 1,403,368 to Allen; 1,608,401 to Kress; and 1,555,541 to Wright. The other exhibits referred to were disclosed in the catalog of Sani-Products Company, and in the May 1924 issue of the American Restaurant Magazine. These disclosures were made during the years of 1924 to 1932 inclusive. They disclose various forms of counter set-up racks and menu-holding clips, both separately and in combination. It is obvious that Oswell merely combines a counter set-up rack with a menu holder, as does the Allen patent. We quite agree with the District Court that invention was not involved in Oswell's disclosure. There were no new elements involved therein, and we think that they produce no new result. The device does not exhibit a very high degree of mechanical skill, to say nothing of ingenuity.
Appellant further contends that the court erred in considering certain of the exhibits which were neither pleaded in appellees' answer, nor was previous notice thereof given to appellant. In support of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blanchard v. JL Pinkerton, Inc.
...Such use may prove lack of invention or limit its scope. Paraffine Cos. v. McEverlast, Inc., 9 Cir., 1936, 84 F.2d 335; Oswell v. Bloomfield, 7 Cir., 1940, 113 F.2d 377. The evidence in the case shows conclusively the installation late in 1932, or early in 1933, — that is prior to the Blanc......
-
Lensch v. Metallizing Co. of America
...U.S.C.A. following section 723c, abrogate or supersede this statute. See note of Advisory Committee to Rule 8(b). See also Oswell v. Bloomfield, 7 Cir., 113 F.2d 377. Defendants' answer sets up ten patents which are alleged to anticipate the patent in suit. Three of those are French and two......
-
Grayson Heat Control v. LOS ANGELES GAS A. CO.
...required little ingenuity and no invention to combine them as did Grayson in the structure to which this claim is drawn. Oswell v. Bloomfield, 7 Cir., 1940, 113 F.2d 377. Claim 10 lacks invention over the prior Plaintiff has indicated, in open court, that it will not pursue the charge of un......
-
Smith v. Dental Products Co., 8278
...the court for any purpose and cites some authorities which have so held. However, this court in the recent case of Oswell v. Bloomfield et al., 7 Cir., 113 F.2d 377, 378, expressly held that "proof of the state of the art is always admissible to show want of invention regardless of whether ......