A.R. Milner Seating Co. v. Yesbera

• Decision Date: 10 November 1904
• Docket Number: 1,306.
• Parties: A. R. MILNER SEATING CO. v. YESBERA.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

133 F. 916

A. R. MILNER SEATING CO. v. YESBERA.

No. 1,306.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

November 10, 1904

Thos B. Hall, for appellant.

Almon Hall, for appellee.

Before LURTON, SEVERENS, and RICHARDS, Circuit Judges.

SEVERENS Circuit Judge.

This case was before us on a former occasion, when we reversed the decree of the lower court which had been rendered against the complainant upon a demurrer to the bill. 111 F. 386, 49 C.C.A. 397. The suit is one for the infringement of a patent granted to Milner January 18, 1898, and numbered 597,686, for improvements in counter stools, used chiefly in stores. The improvements consisted, in part, of a spring, which, coiled on the pinion of a bracket resting upon the floor, extended upward and backward behind the arm of a seat; the lower end of the arm being pivoted in the floor bracket containing the spring. The office of the spring was to throw the seat over toward and under the counter when not occupied, thereby leaving the floor space less obstructed than if the seat remained in a fixed position. The details and supposed advantages of the patent are stated in the former opinion. The bill had then been dismissed for the reason, as held by the lower court, that the patent showed no invention. In reversing the decree we said:

'It may be admitted that the invention is one of narrow limitations, but we are not prepared to hold that in the circumstances, which may be susceptible of proof, the patent should be held void, in the absence of any anticipation, and supported, as it is possible it may be, by evidence that it fulfills a useful purpose, and has been extensively adopted by the public in practical use, and further supported by the presumption of validity arising from the allowance of the patent by the Patent Office, the force of which presumption is augmented by the fact that there was a serious contest in the office, which must have developed the characteristics of the patent, and brought them pointedly into view.'

After the mandate was sent down, the defendant answered, denying that Milner invented the improvements for which his patent was granted, alleging that Milner's supposed invention had been anticipated by several patents, which are enumerated, and denying infringement. The case was heard in the Circuit Court upon the pleadings and proof. The bill was dismissed upon the ground, as stated in the decree, that the patent to Milner 'is invalid and void for want of patentable invention in the device described in said patent and for lack of novelty in said patented device. ' The spring is exhibited in our former opinion. But it seems desirable to reproduce the stool, in order that the relation of all the parts of the stool may be the better understood

(Image Omitted)

A is a recessed bracket fastened to the floor and to the base of the counter. 'b) is a pivot extending through both sides of the bracket and the lower end of the arm, B. D is the spring which is coiled around the pivot, and has an extension, 'f,' reaching some distance up the arm and engaging the back side thereof. The arm of the stool, when that is opened, rests upon the rear part of the bracket at 'd.' The claims are as follows:

'(1) In a counter stool, a recessed floor bracket, a curved stool arm pivoted in the bracket and engaging one of the walls of the bracket to form a stop to limit the outward movement of the arm, a spring encircling the pivot of the arm having extensions engaging, respectively, the stool arm and bracket, a seat place formed on the upper end of the stool arm and disposed in a plane substantially at right angles to the upper end of said stool arm when the latter is in a folded position, whereby the seat of the stool will fold close against the counter, the said angle of the seat plate with the stool arm being such as to cause the seat to lie in a horizontal plane when the latter is in position for use and a seat secured to the seat plate.

'(2) In a store or counter stool, a recessed floor bracket, an arm pivoted to the bracket and engaging one of the walls of the bracket to form a stop to limit the outward movement of the arm, a spring engaging the stool arm and bracket, respectively, a seat plate formed on the upper end of said arm and so disposed in a plane at an angle to the upper end of said stool arm that when the latter is in a folded

...