United States Slicing Mach Co. v. Wolf, Sayer & Heller, Inc.

• Citation: 257 F. 93
• Decision Date: 07 January 1919
• Docket Number: 2611.
• Parties: UNITED STATES SLICING MACH. CO. v. WOLF, SAYER & HELLER, Inc.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

257 F. 93

UNITED STATES SLICING MACH. CO. v. WOLF, SAYER & HELLER, Inc.

No. 2611.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

January 7, 1919

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois.

Suit by the United States Slicing Machine Company against Wolf, Sayer & Heller, Incorporated. Decree for defendant (243 F. 412) and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Frank T. Brown, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.

Max W Zabel, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.

Before BAKER, ALSCHULER, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.

BAKER Circuit Judge.

Appellant's suit on the Stuckart No. 1,039,210, September 24, 1912, for a sharpening device on meat-slicing machines, was dismissed on the ground that appellee's sharpener does not infringe.

Slicing machines and various sharpening devices were old. In the standard machine a rotary steel disk, slightly dished, is the slicer. The concave side terminates in the flat face of the cutting edge; the convex side, in the bevel face. The bevel face requires more grinding, as the flat face should be kept flat. On the flat face nothing is required but grinding away the burr or wire edge caused by grinding the bevel. Prior machines had sharpening means consisting of two grinders which normally were held away from the knife and which by movement of a lever were thrown into contact with the bevel and flat faces at the same time. Stuckart described an improved means in which one grinder was brought against the bevel face first, and then, after the bevel face was ground and while the grinder on that side had no farther movement toward the knife, the other grinder was independently brought against the flat face. In the Patent Office Stuckart distinguished his device from the prior art by pointing out that the movements of his grinders were 'individual and successive.'

On this disclosure Stuckart claimed:

'In a device for sharpening the rotary circular knife of a slicing machine, the combination of a sharpener movable into and out of engagement with the back of the knife, a sharpener movable into and out of engagement with the front of the knife, and means for causing such movements to be successive.' Appellee's sharpener, like those of the prior art, has two grinders on one support. When the lever is in one of its locked positions, the grinders are held away from the knife. When the lever is in the only other locked position

...