Protex Signal Co. v. Feniger

• Decision Date: 08 February 1926
• Docket Number: No. 4282.,4282.
• Citation: 11 F.2d 43
• Parties: PROTEX SIGNAL CO. v. FENIGER et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

11 F.2d 43 (1926)

PROTEX SIGNAL CO. v. FENIGER et al.

No. 4282.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

February 8, 1926.

A. J. Hudson, of Cleveland, Ohio (Thurston, Kwis & Hudson, of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for appellant.

Charles E. Brock, of Cleveland, Ohio (Hull, Brock & West, of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for appellees.

Before DENISON, DONAHUE, and MOORMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

It is unnecessary to discuss in detail the prior patent art. It is sufficient to say that a careful consideration of all of the prior patents relating particularly to "stop signals" introduced in evidence and the testimony in reference to a large number of others of the same character, not only compels the conclusion that none of them anticipate Kroehle, but also emphasizes the fact that many competitors were endeavoring, without success, to produce an automobile signal light that would operate as effectively in the daylight as in the night. The witness Bunyon, who as late as May 14, 1918, obtained a patent upon a signal device for automobiles known as the "Tell-you-when," testified that he kept himself very well posted on all the new signals that came out; that he tried to produce a signal that would have the effect of Protex, and in that connection said: "I could not — just why, I do not know — produce a signal that had the daylight effect that Protex did."

While the familiar prism glass has long been known, yet Rowe in 1917 obtained a patent (1,241,886) for adapting this well-known prism to automobile headlights, and Hall in 1903 obtained a patent (736,722) for adapting the same to an illuminated stationary sign. These two patents are the only ones introduced in evidence that involve the same or similar principles as the Kroehle lens.

The object of the Rowe invention was to provide a lens eight or nine inches in diameter for use in automobile headlights that would not only eliminate the dangerous, blinding glare of the headlights then in use, but would also diffuse the light upon the highway, both directly in front of and to either side of the machine. To accomplish these objects he devised a lens with recessed or indented portions inclining inwardly to a central flat portion or face. Each of these indented portions "is of the inverted shape of the frustum of a pyramid, and the flat parts form part of the flat front face of the lens." There are two and a fraction pyramid prisms in each square inch of surface. The size of the lens may be varied according to the number of these prisms that are used, but there is no suggestion that a change in the size of the prisms themselves will produce the same or a different effect. It is the claim of Rowe that a lens so constructed will eliminate the blinding glare dangerous in a headlight of this size, and diffuse the light upon the highway directly in front and to either side of the machine. No testimony has been introduced tending to prove that it will not accomplish this purpose.

Kroehle's problem was to increase this glare, which by reason of the small surface through which it penetrated would not be dangerous, but would merely aid in making the signal light as effective in the daytime as at night, and also to devise a lens that could be produced with facility and at a low cost. To accomplish these purposes he devised a lens with numerous rearwardly flaring cavities, at least 40 and preferably 70 to each square inch of area, preferably hemispherical and arranged in substantially straight and substantially parallel rows, with raised letters on the front and an outer forwardly facing annular and substantially plain surface concentric in relation to the inner face. The projecting features of the letters and outward circle are presumably for the purpose of economy in manufacture. The teaching of the Rowe patent in relation to means to soften and diffuse refracted rays of artificial light would in no wise suggest to Kroehle or any other inventor that the same principle might also be employed to intensify these rays. In fact, it would seem that the teaching of Rowe would tend to a different conclusion; yet there seems to be no controversy but that Kroehle has, by adaptation of the same principle, produced a lens that will operate as effectively in the daytime as at night.

Hall's invention, No. 736,722, for illuminated stationary signs, especially such as are designed to be illuminated at nighttime, approaches very much more nearly to the Kroehle idea than does Rowe. While Hall states that his sign will present a brilliant and at the same time artistic effect, both in the nighttime and during the day, it is clear that he did not contemplate the illumination of his sign by artificial light in the daytime, but rather that by reason of the sunlight in the daytime and artificial light at night, it would produce a brilliant and artistic appearance. His lens, however, is so widely different in construction from the Kroehle lens that it would not...