Rosenberg v. Shakeproof Lock Washer Co., 6652.

• Decision Date: 20 December 1938
• Docket Number: No. 6652.,6652.
• Parties: ROSENBERG et al. v. SHAKEPROOF LOCK WASHER CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

100 F.2d 811 (1938)

ROSENBERG et al. v. SHAKEPROOF LOCK WASHER CO.

No. 6652.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

December 20, 1938.

Hugh M. Morris, of Wilmington, Del., and Clifton V. Edwards and Reverdy Johnson, both of New York City, for appellants.

Robert W. Byerly, of New York City, Thomas G. Haight, of Jersey City, N. J., Roy H. Olson, of Chicago, Ill., and Ralph M. Watson, of New York City, Marvel, Morford, Ward & Logan, of Wilmington, Del., and Cox & Moore, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.

Before DAVIS, MARIS, and BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judges.

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

In the court below the sole licensee and the grantee of patent No. 1,809,758 (hereafter styled 758) granted June 9, 1931, for a fastener, to H. Rosenberg, brought suit against the Shakeproof Lock Washer Company, charging infringement thereof. In the same bill they charged infringement of patent No. 1,827,615 (hereafter styled 615), granted October 13, 1931, to said Rosenberg for a fastener. After final hearing, the court dismissed the bill. By reference to the opinion of the trial court, reported in D.C., 20 F.Supp. 959, we avoid needless repetition. No principle or precedent is at issue and the decisive question is whether the patents involved invention or were engineering or mechanical advances naturally incident to the development of the industry.

After able argument and due presentation, we find ourselves in accord with the court below and as the opinion of the trial judge satisfactorily and thoroughly discusses the proofs and details, and as a further opinion by this court would be but an effort to clothe in different language what has been thoroughly discussed in such opinion, we refrain from doing so and confine ourselves to brief reference to some particular points.

The old methods and the advances made therein are thus described by the trial judge (italics ours):

"Both patents relate to the type of screw employed for fastening sheets of metal together. After a hole has been bored to aid the screw in penetrating the metal, the screw wedges its way into the metal.

"History of the Art

"Screws have been used for centuries. Their design and manufacture were well understood. Thread rolling was the most economical form of screw manufacture. Pointed screws rolled on curved dies were threaded to the end of the taper. A curved die fits a tapered blank. As you push the blank in you force the material into the grooves of the die. The height of the threads depends upon...