Van Kannel Revolving Door Co. v. Straus
| Decision Date | 19 April 1916 |
| Docket Number | 242. |
| Citation | 235 F. 135 |
| Parties | VAN KANNEL REVOLVING DOOR CO. v. STRAUS et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
This is an appeal from an interlocutory decree of the District Court entered October 28, 1915, finding claims 2 and 8 of United States patent No. 656,062 valid and infringed and awarding an injunction against the defendant for infringing the same. The patent is for certain improvements in revolving doors of the class which has a series of radiating wings rotating in a casing. The object of the present invention is to construct the wings in such a way that they will yield to the rush of a panic-stricken crowd; the wings of the door all being pushed together to the front, so as to provide a wide and unobstructed passage at each side of the center of the door structure. The claims in suit are as follows:
2. The combination, in a revolving door, of a structure mounted so as to rotate about a central axis, a series of wings mounted so as to swing independently of their joint rotating movement about said axis, and self-releasing locking devices, whereby said wings are normally retained in fixed radial relations to said central axis.'
8. The combination, in a revolving door, of a center post, with radiating wings normally locked to said center post but mounted so that they will be automatically unlocked therefrom, and swung forwardly t project side by side when pressure is exerted upon them in other than a normal direction.'
The patentee was the inventor of a former patent for revolving doors, No. 387,571, which had expired before the supposed infringement of the defendant herein. This patent operated upon a similar method, except for the fact that there was no provision for the wings' swinging except on their center of rotation; that is, there was no method by which they could be automatically released so as to provide an exit for a panic-stricken mob. The defendant's device consists of a revolving door of the same general character having four radial wings all rotating with a pintle in the center of the casing. Three of these are hinged so as to have a rotary motion relative to the pintle, while the fourth is rigidly connected with the pintle and can rotate only with it. Between each adjacent couple of wings is a chain, made light enough to be easily ruptured in case a strong pressure is exerted upon opposing sides of two adjacent wings. When the chain between any two wings is ruptured by pressure from the inside they collapse outwardly. Since the hinged wings will not all lie flat with the rigid wing, and since the rigid wing must turn the pintle itself to assume a position of egress, it chances to result that there is only one position in which an exit is permitted on both sides of the pintle and that in every other position the wings block one of the two exits. The theory of the operation of the door is, first that the panic-stricken crowd shall break the chain; and second, that unless the favorable position by chance happens to be the resultant of the pressures, the hinges of one, or at most two, of the hinged wings will also rupture, so as eventually to swing the rigid wing, and then all the other wings parallel with the egress of the crowd. A rupture of the hinges, as well as of the chain, is therefore presupposed for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Van Kannel Revolving Door Co. v. Winton Hotel Co.
... ... v. Revolving ... Door & Fixtures Co. (1914), C.C.A. 2, 219 F. 741 (claims 1, ... 2, 8 and 13), 135 C.C.A. 439; Louisville Trust Co. v. Van ... Kannel Revolving Door Co. (1916), C.C.A. 6, 231 F. 166 ... (claims 2 and 8), 145 C.C.A. 354; Van Kannel Revolving Door ... Co. v. Straus (1916), C.C.A. 2, 235 F. 135 (claims 2 and 8), ... 148 C.C.A. 629; Van Kannel Revolving Door Co. v. Lyon & Healy ... (1917), C.C.A. 7, 247 F. 329 (claims 1, 2 and 8), 159 C.C.A ... 423; Van Kannel Revolving Door Co. v. Uhrich (1916, D.C.), ... 247 F. 344 (claims 1, 2 and 8) ... [2] Van ... ...
-
Schick Dry Shaver v. RH Macy & Co.
...for it is not as efficient. The defendants practice the invention but imperfectly. As stated by Judge Learned Hand in Van Kannel Revolving Door v. Straus, et al., 2 Cir., 235 F. 135, at page 137: "* * * it has used the idea in the invention, but has incorporated it in an imperfect form, a s......
-
Van Kannel Revolving Door Co. v. Winton Hotel Co.
... ... plaintiff's present contentions. These decisions are as ... follows: Van Kannel v. Revolving Door & Fixture Co. (2 ... C.C.A.) 219 F. 741, 135 C.C.A. 439; Louisville Trust ... Co. v. Van Kannel (6 C.C.A.) 231 F. 166, 145 C.C.A. 354; ... Van Kannel Revolving Door Co. v. Nathan Straus (2 ... C.C.A.) 235 F. 135, 148 C.C.A. 629; Van Kannel ... Revolving Door Co. v. Lyon & Healy (7 C.C.A.) 247 F ... 329, 159 C.C.A. 423; Van Kannel Revolving Door Co. v. Uhrich, ... decision and opinion by Pollock, District Judge, 247 F. 344 ... The ... nature and elements of ... ...
-
Williams Iron Works Co. v. Hughes Tool Co.
...2 Cir., 76 F.2d 122, 123; Telescope Cot Bed Co. v. Gold Metal C. F. Mfg. Co., 2 Cir., 229 F. 1002, 1004; Van Kannel Revolving Door Co. v. Straus, 2 Cir., 235 F. 135, 137; General Electric Co. v. Alexander, 2 Cir., 280 F. 852, Murray v. Detroit Wire Spring Co., 6 Cir., 206, F. 465, 468; King......