Reed Mfg. Co. v. Smith & Winchester Co.

• Decision Date: 01 July 1903
• Docket Number: 146.
• Citation: Reed Mfg. Co. v. Smith & Winchester Co., 123 F. 878 (2nd Cir. 1903)
• Parties: REED MFG. CO. v. SMITH & WINCHESTER CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

123 F. 878

REED MFG. CO. v. SMITH & WINCHESTER CO. et al.

No. 146.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

July 1, 1903

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Connecticut.

J. P Bartlett, for appellants.

Hugh C Lord, for appellee.

This cause comes here upon appeal from an interlocutory decree of the Circuit Court, District of Connecticut. The suit is for infringement of United States letters patent No. 608,720 August 9, 1898, to William C. Shaw for collar turning and ironing machine. The court held the first claim of the patent to be valid, found infringement, and decreed injunction and accounting. When the suit was begun an order for injunction pendente lite was granted. 103 F. 796. Upon appeal to this court he held that it was 'manifest that there is presented a substantial question as to infringement, which can be settled only upon construction of the patent, and that requires a presentation of the state of the art, and a history of the invention in the Patent Office. The case would seem to be one in which preliminary injunction should not be granted without proof of prior adjudication.' 107 F. 719 46 C.C.A. 601.

Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and COXE, Circuit Judges.

LACOMBE Circuit Judge.

The specification states that the invention

-- 'Relates to improvements in collar turning and ironing machines, and embodies mechanism for turning the rolls of turn-down collars, and for turning the tips and finishing the edge of stand-up collars; and it consists, substantially, of a vertical semicircular plate, over which the collars are turned, and grooved sad-irons adapted to move in the arcs of circles over said semicircular plate for ironing the turns of the collars thereon. Heating devices are also provided upon which the sad-irons rest when not in use. * * * From the rear of a base plate there rise two hollow upright standards, each provided with a heating-plate at the top thereof. In each of these standards there is a gas-burner, the flame from which impinges against the under side of the heating-plate. Centrally upon the base is secured an upright post, to which is secured by suitable arms a vertical semicircular plate, over the upper edge of which a collar or a collar-tip may be turned. To the top of this post are pivoted two arms, having operating handles thereon, each of which arms is provided with a sad-iron, which when not in use normally rests upon a heating-plate. These sad-irons are each provided with a groove, adapted to fit over the upper edge of the vertical plate, and be swung around thereon by means of the operating handles, one only of the sad-irons being used at a time, the other meanwhile resting on its heating-plate, so that there is always a hot iron ready for use. * * * In the operation of ironing a turn-down collar after it has been ironed flat in the usual manner, it is dampened on the line upon which it is to be turned, and then turned over the edge of the semicircular plate. The operator then passes one of the grooved sad-irons back and forth over the edge of the turn in the collar upon the edge of the plate until it is ironed dry.'

The patent contains four claims, of which the first only is declared upon. It reads as follows:

(1) In a collar turning and ironing machine, the combination of a curved flange-shaped former, over which the collar is folded and curved into proper shape for wear, a grooved iron arranged opposite the former, and means for moving the grooved iron into engagement with the former, and for moving one of said parts upon the other, substantially as set forth.'

It is contended by defendants that the claim is void for lack of patentable novelty. The utmost that defendants' proof establishes is summarized on the last page of their brief: 'It was a very common thing to turn down and iron turn-down collars by machinery, and to set the curve into the collar by machinery. ' No machine, however, performing both these functions in a single operation is shown, nor is there any showing the combination of the patent. The device of Wiles and Adams patent (173,006) is for ironing collars flat only; in Wiles (258,334) there is nothing which bears on the edge which is turned over so as to iron and finish that as complainant does; Cummings (483,139 and 509,514) show a former or shaper only, not a flanged former over which the collar can be turned down and ironed; Burgess (557,766) turns the collar, but has not a curved former adapted to shape it to the neck of the wearer. It seems to be conceded that the devices which come closest to that of the patent are those of the German patent to Mindt (24,731) and the United States patent to Ryder (287,865). The Mindt patent is obscurely expressed, and it is not easy to make out just what his device is. It was held in the Circuit Court, on application for preliminary injunction, that: 'Fig. 5 of the Mindt patent shows a 'saddle-shaped' mold, whose ridges lay themselves into the depression of a heated ironing roller. It is clear from the Mindt specification that it is not, as constructed, designed to perform the function of the machine of the patent in suit. It is not clear that its scope was not merely to iron the bank and the fact of the collar. The specification states that it is 'not desirable to iron both parts of the collar at the same time.' Nor is it clear that this machine was not merely designed to iron new collars for the market, and not to fit laundered collars to the neck. The Mindt patent issued 15 years ago; the patent in suit appears to be a marked improvement thereon.'

We concur in this statement; Mindt effects the preliminary ironing of the collar, not the shaping and ironing of the fold. The Ryder patent (287,865) is not found in the record. Appellants have reproduced Fig. 1 of the drawings in their brief. It...