Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Condit Electrical Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 11 December 1911 |
| Docket Number | 68. |
| Citation | 194 F. 427 |
| Parties | WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC & MFG. CO. v. CONDIT ELECTRICAL MFG. CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Kerr Page, Cooper & Hayward (Thomas B. Kerr and John C. Kerr, of counsel), for appellant.
Edwards Sager & Wooster (Clifton V. Edwards, of counsel), for appellee.
Before LACOMBE, COXE, and NOYES, Circuit Judges.
NOYES Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
Our decision in the circuit breaker patent case has little application here. We regarded the question of invention in that case as doubtful but resolved it in favor of the patentees by reason of especial advantages in the structure, none of which, except perhaps the form, had any reference to the switch element.
Besides we think that the claims of this patent cover something more than the switch of the other. This case also differs from that in that there it appeared that the circuit breaker had gone into extensive use, while it is not shown that this switch has had any substantial use. It seems to have failed entirely to supplant the old knife-blade switch.
The primary question then is whether invention is to be found in the present claims of which we may take claim 1 as typical the elements being:
The advantages of this construction urged by the complainant in its brief may thus be summarized:
(1) It is said that by the adoption of the beveled laminated contact member perfect contact is obtained and the binding friction of the old switches obviated. Indeed as shown by the specification this seems to have been regarded by the patentees themselves as the principal change from the prior art. It is also pointed out in the brief that the scraping action of the laminae keeps the surfaces bright and secures good contact.
(2) It is contended that by mounting the movable contact upon a swinging arm a wide break is secured to interrupt the arc.
(3) It is also urged that the movement of the swinging arm is such that a minimum of lateral space is required.
Much stress is placed upon the presence and action of a toggle lever, but we find no reference to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
GH Packwood Mfg. Co. v. St. Louis Janitor Supply Co.
...the Patent Office, the rejection of narrow claims was followed by the allowance of a broader claim. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Condit Electrical Mfg. Co., 2 Cir., 194 F. 427, 430; Smith v. Snow, 294 U.S. 1, 16, 55 S.Ct. 279, 79 L.Ed. 721; See and compare, National Hollow Brake-Beam......
-
Smith v. Snow 8212 1934
...Office the rejection of narrow claims was followed by the allowance of the broader claim 1. Westing-house Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Condit Electrical Mfg. Co., 194 F. 427, 430 (C.C.A.2d). 3. Claim 1 is not limited by the prior art. It is urged that there was disclosure by Smith by public use m......
-
Bergman v. Aluminum Lock Shingle Corp. of America
...the facts of this case, we need not be concerned with the proceedings in the Patent Office. In Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Condit Electrical Mfg. Co., 2 Cir., 1911, 194 F. 427, 430, Judge Noyes (not Judge Learned Hand, as appellee states)4 used the following "We have reached the con......
-
Haliczer v. United States
...up certain claims rejected by the examiner in order to induce the latter to issue a patent. See Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co. v. Condit Elec. Mfg. Co., 194 F. 427, 430 (2d Cir. 1911); Auto Pneumatic Action Co. v. Kindler & Collins, 247 F. 323, 328 (2d Cir. 1917); A. G. Spalding ......