Ranco, Inc. v. Gwynn
| Decision Date | 05 June 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 8960.,8960. |
| Citation | 128 F.2d 437 |
| Parties | RANCO, Inc., v. GWYNN et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Warren H. F. Schmieding, of Columbus, Ohio (Warren H. F. Schmieding and Webb I. Vorys, both of Columbus, Ohio, on the brief), for appellant.
John W. Malley and William M. Cushman, both of Washington, D. C. (John W. Malley and Wm. W. Cushman, both of Washington, D. C., and William S. Babcock, of Columbus, Ohio, on the brief), for appellee.
Before SIMONS, MARTIN, and McALLISTER, Circuit Judges.
This appeal is from a decree holding appellant guilty of infringement of a patent, and granting an injunction and an accounting. In this case, William A. Gwynn is hereinafter referred to as the appellee, the other parties so designated in the pleadings, being joined because of contractual relations with him. On review, the principal contention of appellant is that the three claims in suit are invalid for lack of invention; that appellee's patent is merely a copy of old devices, included in the prior art; and that appellant did not infringe.
Appellee's device, patent No. 2,009,549, is for repairing inner tubes of automobile tires, and for attaching rubber valve stems to the tubes by vulcanization. It is well known that a valve stem is used as part of an inner tube of an automobile tire. In the end of the valve stem is placed a small metal insert, which contains a valve core. The valve core comprises a barrel, having a small outside sleeve of rubber attached to the metal insert, and a rubber cup, which constitutes a seat for the valve. The valves are usually inserted and attached in the ends of the valve stems when they are first manufactured.
Such a valve stem has a disk, patch, or shank of rubber attached around one end. In order to vulcanize or bond the rubber shank of the valve stem to the rubber of an inner tube, the two separate surfaces of rubber must be held together and heated to a high temperature. This is the purpose of the device on which appellee Gwynn secured a patent, and can, as far as this case is concerned, be described as a hollow metal block with a hole in it. In the hollow part of the block is an electric heater. The block rests upon a base, to which are attached legs, leaving an air space between the block and a table or bench upon which the device may rest.
The manner in which the vulcanizing is performed is that the valve stem is inserted in the hole of the metal block, with the rubber shank attached to the end of the valve stem, lying flat on the upper surface of the metal block. The rubber tube is then held against the rubber shank of the valve stem, and the electric wires of the heater cause the surface of the block to become heated, which, in turn, heats the surfaces of the rubber to such temperature that they become bonded or coalesced.
In brief, appellee claimed that he had invented a vulcanizing device in which a valve stem extended through a hole in the vulcanizing block and beyond the underside of its base, sufficiently beyond a heating unit in the block, to avoid excessive heating of the outer end portion of the valve stem, and that the device was also arranged to concentrate heat on the vulcanizing surface immediately adjacent to the hole through which the valve stem extended. The extension of the end of the valve stem through the block, beyond the heating unit and beyond the underside of its base, is alleged to protect the valve core, contained within the end of the valve stem, from excessive and injurious heat during the vulcanizing operation.
The District Court found that Gwynn had invented a small, light, cheap, portable, quickly and economically operated, electric vulcanizer for attaching rubber valve stems to inner tubes in such a way as to protect the stems, as well as the rubber valve cores therein used, from excessive heat during the vulcanization; and that he was the first to combine these elements, solve the problem, and achieve the results sought.
The patent in suit is in the crowded portable vulcanizing art; Shaler Co. v. Rite-Way Products, 6 Cir., 107 F.2d 82, and in reviewing appellant's contentions that appellee's patent is invalid, as lacking invention and including only an aggregation of old elements, we consider certain of the prior patents, to which reference is made, and other devices which have been long in use, and which, it is claimed, fulfill the same functions as the patent in suit.
The Kremer device, patent 1,078,097, consists of a mold, divided into an upper and a lower section, for "splicing or vulcanizing rubber tubes and the like." Apparently, before 1925, inner tubes were made by first wrapping rubber on a mandrel and then taking this length of tubing and joining the ends together by vulcanization — thus making a circular, continuous tube. The Kremer device was adapted to this purpose. The tubing was placed in the mold, with the ends, as stated by appellee, "suitably treated and united by telescoping or otherwise." On each side of the part of the tube to be vulcanized, the upper part of the mold locked down tightly on the tubing. Through the lower mold, there was a hole through which the valve stem of the tube protruded. Through this valve, the portion of the tube in the mold was inflated, the tube being pinched down on each side of the place to be spliced. Only that portion of the tube adjacent to the ends which were to be joined, was inflated, causing it to be pressed against the mold. Around the mold, at the point of splicing, were hollow chambers, into which steam was introduced. By this heat, the ends of the tube were vulcanized. At the same time, the rubber patch or shank of the valve was vulcanized to the tube. Appellant contends that the patent in suit was copied from the Kremer patent, in so far as it was a device, in which the valve stem protruded through a hole, remote from the vulcanizing surface, during the operation of vulcanizing a valve stem patch to a tube. Appellee emphasizes that the Kremer device was used to vulcanize the shanks of metal valve stems; that there was no concentration of heat at the point of such vulcanization; and that the device was large and bulky, and not inexpensive, portable, light, and quickly operated, as is appellee's device.
The Kuhlke patent, No. 1,652,366, is for a device to vulcanize inner tubes, and consists of a mold for vulcanizing raw rubber into the shape of a tube. There is an aperture in the mold, through which the valve stem protrudes into the open air. Witness Keltner testified that as far back as 1930, the apparatus, with a slightly enlarged aperture, had been used to vulcanize rubber valve stems to inner tubes. The heating medium was steam and the device was large and heavy, and not adapted to quick application of the valve stems to inner tubes. Both the Kremer and Kuhlke devices are criticized by appellee on the ground that, in both, there was a failure to concentrate heat for vulcanizing a valve stem, and that application of vulcanizing heat to the entire surface of the tube enclosed within the mold, merely to attach a valve stem, would result in deterioration to the tube, after its first vulcanization in manufacture.
The Oppenheimer patent, No. 1,323,544, consists of a hollow metal chamber, heated by steam, with an aperture in its center to permit the insertion of a straight valve stem. The valve stem extended into an enclosed space, surrounded by the steam chamber. The shank of the stem rested upon the vulcanizing surface and the tube was clamped upon this shank. The Ryan patent, No. 1,579,490, was an improvement on the foregoing, being adapted for a bent valve stem.
The Campbell patent, No. 1,587,282, is for an electric tube plate vulcanizer, with a hole in the metal heating plate, in which the valve stem is inserted, protruding at the bottom of the plate into the open air. Vulcanization between the shank of the stem and the tube resulted when they were clamped down on the heating surface. Appellee argues that the heat was not concentrated at the point of vulcanization, as in his device, and to heat the entire plate would require considerably more electric current than is necessary in the patent in suit. It is also contended that the Campbell device does not purport to vulcanize rubber stems to inner tubes. But the so-called Moll vulcanizer, concerning which testimony was introduced, was modeled on the Campbell device, and satisfactorily vulcanized rubber valve stems to inner tubes.
The Gold Nugget vulcanizer, a photograph of which was introduced in evidence, included a metal block, flat on its upper vulcanizing surface, and heated by steam. In the center of the block, a hole was drilled to permit insertion of a valve stem. The method of vulcanization was similar to that of the other devices, but the valve stem, during the operation, was completely surrounded and enclosed by the heated metal block.
C. L. Sweazy, a tire repair man and a witness for appellant, testified that he had vulcanized rubber shanks of valve stems to inner tubes, from 1931 on, by a practical make-shift method similar to the patent in issue. On the flat surface of a steam chamber, he had merely placed a small, solid metal pulley wheel, with a hole through its center. The sides of the pulley were flat. Through the hole in the pulley, he inserted the valve stem, leaving the shank lying flat on the top surface of the pulley. The inner tube was pressed down against the valve shank at the point where it was desired to vulcanize. The steam was turned on in the heating chamber, which, in turn, heated the metal pulley and caused the rubber pressed against its top surface to become vulcanized. Sweazy used this method with rubber valve stems, as well as those of metal.
Ora Forgette, a tire dealer and vulcanizer, testified that when rubber valve stems came into use in 1930, in answer to his question to a tire salesman as to how they could be vulcanized to tubes, he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
De Cew v. Union Bag & Paper Corporation
...Dovan Chemical Corp., 276 U.S. 358, 48 S.Ct. 380, 72 L.Ed. 610; Floridin Co. v. Attapulgus Clay Co., 3 Cir., 125 F.2d 669; Ranco, Inc., v. Gwynn, 6 Cir., 128 F.2d 437. The further contention that the Weygang patent "was permitted to lapse for nonpayment of the taxes," although supported by ......
-
Chiplets, Inc. v. June Dairy Products Co.
...claims in suit are therefore invalid because of anticipation. Gilbert v. Marzall, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 182 F.2d 389, 394; Ranco, Inc. v. Gwynn, 6 Cir., 128 F.2d 437, 443; Lyman Gun Sight Corp. v. Redfield Gun Sight Corp., 10 Cir., 87 F.2d 26, 28. The decision of the Court, however, does not r......
-
O'LEARY v. Liggett Drug Co.
...could now be held to constitute invention. See Mathews Conveyor Co. v. Palmer-Bee Co., 6 Cir., 135 F.2d 73, 89; Ranco, Inc., v. Gwynn, 6 Cir., 128 F.2d 437, 442, 443; Page Steel & Wire Co. v. Smith Bros. Hardware Co., 6 Cir., 64 F.2d 512, 514; Seiberling Rubber Co. v. I. T. S. Co., 6 Cir., ......
-
Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Continental Can Company
...ordinary skill in the art. See, e. g., Duo-Flex Corp. v. Building Service Co., 322 F.2d 94, 96 (5th Cir. 1963); Ranco, Inc. v. Gwynn, 128 F.2d 437, 443 (6th Cir. 1942). These definitions would appear to be overly broad and to confuse anticipation with the separate test of invention, present......