Steiner & Voegtly Hardware Co. v. Tabor Sash Co.
Decision Date | 11 April 1910 |
Citation | 178 F. 831 |
Parties | STEINER & VOEGTLY HARDWARE CO. v. TABOR SASH CO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
Christy & Christy (Marshall A. Christy, of counsel), for complainant.
Frank S. Katzenbach, Jr. (J. William Ellis, of counsel), for defendant.
The complainant, as assignee of letters patent reissue No. 12,405 (applied for November 10, 1904), dated November 7, 1905 (original No. 488,761, dated December 27, 1892), and letters patent No. 580,127, dated April 6, 1897, granted to James H Giesey, for certain new and useful improvements in windows brings this suit against defendant for an alleged infringement of such patents.
The bill alleges that the improvements covered by said letters patents are capable of use conjointly in one and the same window, and that the defendant has so used them. It contains the usual charges of the making, selling, and using by the defendant of windows that are an infringement of the complainant's patents, and prays the usual remedies of an injunction and an accounting.
The charge of the bill relative to the infringement of patent No 580,127 was abandoned. The question submitted, therefore relates entirely to the reissued letters patent No. 12,405, and the charge of infringement is based upon claims 1, 2, and 3 of that patent.
This patented device, adopting the language of the complainant's brief--
The defendant admits that, if claims 1 and 2 are held to be valid, its two devices, 'Complainant's Exhibits Defendant's Windows No. 1 and 2,' infringe such claims. It contends, however, that all of the three claims are invalid for the following reasons:
'First, that the reissue as a reissue is void because of laches and intervening rights and because the description in the original specification is insufficient to support the claims of the reissue; second, that the claims in issue are totally lacking in novelty and invention; third, that the defendant does not infringe any valid claims of the patent in issue.'
The character of these defenses requires an extended quotation of and reference to the specifications of both patents. They will be combined; the parts of the original omitted from the reissue being bracketed, and the new parts in the reissue being italicized. They are as follows:
The following are the drawings here referred to:
(Image Omitted) * * * Similar letters of reference indicate like parts in the several figures of the drawings.
"A' represents an ordinary window frame with the sill, B, provided with a rabbet or seat for the lower rail of the sash, C, as is customary in the construction of windows in which the sash is raised and lowered to open and close the window; this seat or rabbet in the sill being essentially necessary to form a guard against the entrance of wind, dirt, and rain when the window is closed. The sash, C, is swung centrally upon vertical pivots, D, D'. , is formed integral with a plate. E', which plate is secured by screws, b, in a mortise on the under side of the lower rail of the sash, and formed with two longitudinal channels, g, g, to permit of the movement, hereinafter described, of the eccentrics. The sash is made less than the length of the opening in the frame, and consequently, when the lower rail of the sash is properly seated upon the sill or in the rabbet thereof, the upper rail of the sash will be below the under side of the upper part of the frame, and to close the space thus created, I provide an ordinary 'follower,' F, which rests upon the upper rail of the sash and is lifted thereby when the sash is raised, and falls by gravity when the sash is lowered. This follower is mortised out centrally to surround the upper pivot plate, D, when the said follower is lifted, as is clearly shown at Fig. 2. * * *
, during which movement the follower, F, has been lifted up into its pocket or box in the upper portion of the frame, A. The sash may now be freely rotated upon its vertical pivots, D, D', at any angle to the natural plane of the window, and to such an extent that the outside surface of the sash, or glass, is readily accessible from the inside for the purpose of cleaning the same. When it is desired to restore the sash to its closed position, it is rotated in a reverse direction until it reaches its normal plane within the frame, the lever, I, is then thrown back, and the weight of the sash causes it to descend within the rabbet in the sill and to rest with its entire weight throughout its entire width upon the sill, and, as the sash in ordinary use is for a greater portion of the time closed, it will be seen that its own weight operates to keep it in true and stiff condition, thus avoiding the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stead Lens Co. v. Kryptok Co.
... ... v. Pratt (C.C.) 70 F. 622-624; ... Hardware Co. v. Tabor Sash Co. (C.C.) 178 F ... 831-841; ... ...
-
Kryptok Co. v. Stead Lens Co.
... ... v. Pratt (C.C.) 70 F ... 622-624; Hardware Co. v. Tabor Sash Co. (C.C.) 178 ... F. 831-841; ... ...
-
Detroit Motor Appliance Co. v. Burke
...the possibility of invention. Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford, 214 U. S. 366, 381, 29 S. Ct. 652, 53 L. Ed. 1034; Steiner, etc., Co. v. Tabor Co. (C. C.) 178 F. 831, 839; St. Louis Street Flushing Co. v. American Street Flushing Co., 156 F. 574, 84 C. C. A. 340. In the last cited case, the c......
-
Ward Baking Co. v. Weber Bros
... ... expedient. ' See also Steiner & Voeghtly Company v ... Tabor Sash Company, 178 F. 831 ... ...