Shreckhise v. Ritchie

• Decision Date: 09 April 1947
• Docket Number: No. 5552.,5552.
• Citation: 160 F.2d 593,73 USPQ 138
• Parties: SHRECKHISE v. RITCHIE et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

73 USPQ 138, 160 F.2d 593 (1947)

SHRECKHISE v. RITCHIE et al.

No. 5552.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

April 9, 1947.

John W. Malley, of Washington, D. C. (Clarence M. Elder, of Staunton, Va., and William M. Cushman and Cushman, Darby & Cushman, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellant.

Glenn W. Ruebush, of Harrisonburg, for appellees.

Before PARKER, SOPER, and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.

SOPER, Circuit Judge.

This suit involves the validity and the infringement of United States Patent No. 2,341,392 issued to George W. Shreckhise on February 8, 1944 on an application filed April 10, 1940, for apparatus for coating typewriter ribbons. The District Judge found for the defendants on both questions and dismissed the bill of complaint. We consider only the question of validity since we are in accord with the Judge's opinion on this point, Shreckhise v. Ritchie, 67 F.Supp. 926.

The decision below is based on the finding that Shreckhise was not the sole inventor of the device as he claimed to be, but only one of several men whose joint efforts contributed to the solution of the problem with which the group was concerned. They were striving to design an apparatus for coating the back side of typewriter ribbons with a solution such as cellulose acetate so as to form a relatively hard protective surface which would confine the ink within the ribbon and serve as a strong and durable medium to receive the impact of the keys and thus prolong the ribbon's life. The defendant Humes, who was engaged in the business of repairing typewriters and selling typewriters and typewriter supplies, had perfected such a solution in 1936 and in 1939 received a patent on it. He was associated with the defendant Ritchie who had considerable experience as a salesman in the typewriter field, and it was understood that they were to share the profits which might result from the patenting and sale of the solution. However, they did not have sufficient means to finance the enterprise and therefore in June, 1937, they enlisted the aid of Shreckhise, a nephew of Ritchie. Shreckhise was not a man of mechanical training or experience, but had been a farmer and a manufacturer of chicken coops. He entered into the group and it was agreed that he was to have a share in the business which apparently amounted to one-third.

Humes had constructed a device for the application of his solution to the ribbon. The apparatus consisted of a tank to contain the solution, with a small aperture in the bottom of the tank through which the solution was allowed to drip by gravity upon the ribbon as it passed beneath the tank in its journey between two reels which were mounted on opposite sides of the tank and were operated by hand. It was recognized by all that the Humes apparatus was too slow and inefficient for commercial operation, and accordingly in the fall of 1938, the three men began the search for a more effective device. One Edward Wright, now deceased, a man of mechanical skill, also assisted. Experiments and trials were made at Hume's place of business at Harrisonburg, Virginia, which resulted before the end of the year in the construction of a machine embodying the elements described in the patent. Later, to facilitate commercial production, the machine was set up in a rented building at Weyer's Cave, Virginia, where Shreckhise resided. Certain sketches were made and certain models were constructed at Shreckhise's direction at Muncie, Indiana. Finally in January, 1939, Shreckhise caused a framework to be constructed at Weyer's Cave which was taken to Humes' place of business at Harrisonburg and successfully operated. Later it was removed to Weyer's Cave.

The apparatus covered by the patent in suit does not apply the solution downwardly by gravity, but discharges the solution upwardly to the undersurface of the moving ribbon so as to apply a thin coating uniformly. The solution is caused to ascend from a supply tank through a pipe by a spiral or worm pump and proceeds then through a passage to a nozzle through which it comes into contact with the undersurface of the ribbon. During the operation the ribbon is passed under a roller or guide bar which is mounted at about the point where the solution is applied and thereby the ribbon is kept under proper tension and held close to the nozzle from which the solution emerges. The excess of the solution is scraped from the ribbon after it is coated by the edge of a blade or chisel and allowed to drop back into the tank. The combination of these various elements, the tank, the worm, the passage, the nozzle, the roller and the chisel, brought about the desired result and undoubtedly made up an apparatus far superior to the original device of Humes and turned what had been a faulty operation into an efficient and successful one, accomplishing the end in view.

The difficulty with the plaintiff's case is that the proof shows that he was not the sole...