Citation Numbers: 25 F. 825
Judges: Nixon
Filed Date: 11/20/1885
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 9/9/2022
The bill of complaint alleges infringement of certain letters patent No. 108,800, dated October 11, 1870, for an improvement in trunk-rollers, and owned by complainant as assignee for one Albert J. Sessions, the inventor.
The answer sets up various defenses; but, after a careful consideration of the state of the art at the date of complainant’s patent, I think the only defenses that demanded serious thought are (1) that Albert J. Sessions was not the original and first inventor of any material and substantial part of the thing patented; and (2) that the defendants are not infringers. It is not necessary for me to express an opinion on the first of these defenses in the present suit, because, if decided in favor of the complainant, I must give such a narrow construction to the scope of his patent that the defendants cannot be held to infringe. The inventor in his specification says that his invention consists of forming a trunk-roller frame from a square sheet-metal blank, having four short diagonal incisions in the edges of the same, between which incisions two opposite corners of the blank are turned up to form the ears. His method is quite simple. He first cuts the metal into square blocks, slightly rounds the four corners, and punches a hole in each comer. The blank is then placed in the forming dies specially made for the purpose, which, as they close or meet, make four incisions diagonally with the blank. The corners of the blank between those incisions are then bent up at right angles to the rest of the plato, thus forming the oars. The usual cast-metal rollers are then secured between the ears by a pin, as in ordinary trunk-rollers. He claims, as his invention, “the herein described trunk-roller, the frame of which is formed from a square sheet-metal, blank, cut or incised at the junction of the plate, A, and ears, B B; said ears being bent up from two opposite corners, so as to leave the points, c c c c, substantially as described.”
Since a double use is still forbidden, it is no longer a reply to those-proofs of the state of the art to say, as complainant’s expert seems to suggest, that roller-frames and rollers, thus constructed, were not made or used for castors in trunks. If the complainant’s patent is-sustained, no infringement is shown, and the bill of complaint must, be dismissed, with costs.