DocketNumber: No. 6940
Citation Numbers: 84 F.2d 171
Judges: Moorman
Filed Date: 6/2/1936
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/23/2022
The patent in suit, Shurtleff reissue No, 18,374, is for a heating and ventilating unit. It makes 34 claims, 20 of which were alleged in the bill to be infringed. The defenses were lack of invention, invalidity in view of the prior art and prior uses, and noninfringement. The lower court passed only on those of lack of invention and invalidity because of prior art and publications, sustaining both and dismissing the bill.
It is apparent from the prior patents and publications pleaded, as well as the adjudged cases [Callahan v. Nesbitt (C.C. A.) 1 F.(2d) 75; Herman Nelson Corporation v. Columbus Heating & V. Co. (C.C.A.6) 11 F.(2d) 273], that the art of constructing heating and ventilating apparatus is a crowded art. The record shows that the article covered by the appellant’s patent was never used. Though described in variable terms in the claims,- it consists in substance of a cabinet or housing having an air inlet through which air may be drawn, a fan to draw the air into the housing or cabinet and to drive it upwardly through a radiator of relatively small dimensions and lightness, whence it is discharged through an outlet in the wall. Provision is also made for a damper to divert the course of the air from the radiator and discharge it through the outlet when it is desired not to pass it through the radiator. The trial court found, citing many prior patents and publications, that all of these features of the device were old. Without referring to the citations in detail, it is enough to say that they sustain the court’s view. The theory of appellant is that the finding was erroneous because it was based on a review of the general heating and ventilating art, and the patent in controversy is directed solely to a unit heating and ventilating device as such, a unit having a relatively light-weight radiator of cellular, tubular, or honeycomb construction, which, as it claims, is in a separate art or is an art in itself.
The specifications assert that the novel features of the patent are the result of the utilization of a highly efficient type of heating element or radiator heretofore limited in its use to the field of automobile
Although the patent does not call for a copper radiator, the case is argued for appellant on the assumption that -a relatively light radiator indicates a radiator made of copper or something equally as light, and that the case must be considered from the point of view of the use for the first time in a heating apparatus of a relatively light copper radiator. The trial court was of opinion that the evidence did not justify a finding that copper radiators had not been used in earlier heating devices. We think that view is correct, and we are of the further opinion that, if it were not, the substitution of that metal, a well-known heat transmitter, for other metals of the prior art used for the same purpose, with no change in the function or effectiveness of the combination, was not invention. Kilbourne v. W. Bingham Co., 50 F. 697, 703 (C.C.A.6); Strom Mfg. Co. v. Weir Frog Co., 83 F. 170 (C.C.A.6); Drake Castle Pressed Steel Lug Co. v. Brownell & Co., 123 F. 86 (C.C.A.6); Wise Soda Apparatus Co. v. Bishop-Babcock-Becker Co., 240 F. 733 (C.C.A.6). Neither, in our view, was it invention to use a smaller or lighter radiator [cf. A. O. Smith Corp. v. Petroleum Iron Works Co. (C.C.A.) 73 F.(2d) 531, 533, 535], for it effected no change in operative functions or results, and, besides, the record shows the use of other radiators and heating units of not greater dimensions or weight than contemplated by the patent.
The decree is affirmed.