Home/Federal Circuit/Chore-Time Equipment, Inc. v. Cumberland Corporation

Chore-Time Equipment, Inc. v. Cumberland Corporation

713 F.2d 774, 218 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 673, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 13626
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
DecidedJuly 13, 1983
DocketAppeal 83-518, 83-598
StatusPublished
Cited by145 cases

This text of 713 F.2d 774 (Chore-Time Equipment, Inc. v. Cumberland Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chore-Time Equipment, Inc. v. Cumberland Corporation, 713 F.2d 774, 218 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 673, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 13626 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

Opinion

MARKEY, Chief Judge.

Chore-Time Equipment, Inc., (Chore-Time) appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (Wilson, J.) holding Chore-Time’s U.S. Patent No. 3,911,868 (the Brembeck patent), issued October 14, 1975, for a “Poultry Feeder”, invalid and awarding summary judgment to Cumberland Corporation (Cumberland). Chore-Time also appeals an award of costs to Cumberland. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

On May 23, 1980, Chore-Time sued Cumberland for infringement of claims 1, 2 and 7 through 11 of the Brembeck patent. Cumberland denied infringement and moved for summary judgment, asserting patent invalidity in view of certain prior art patents and the deposition testimony of Howard S. Brembeck (Brembeck), President of Chore-Time and patentee of the Brembeck patent.

The court granted the motion on September 14, 1982, holding in effect that: the subject matter of claims 1, 7 and 9 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,490,419 (Van Huis ’419); that the subject matter of claims 1, 7 and 11 was anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Van Huis ’419; and that the subject matter of claims 1, 2, 8 and 10 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Van Huis ’419 and U.S. Patent Nos. 3,388,690 (Hostetter), 3,566,843 (Van Huis ’843), and 3,511,215 (Myers).

Cumberland, in its Bill of Costs, requested reimbursement of $3,077.29 for hearing and deposition transcripts, copying of documents and exhibits, translation, computer *776 time, and enlargement of exhibits. In a November 19, 1982 order, the court awarded $2,932.32 in costs for all but computer time and exhibit enlargement.

THE BREMBECK PATENT

The Brembeck patent discloses and claims a feeder pan assembly for automated poultry feeding:

The feeder of the Brembeck patent includes:

1. a hood consisting of:
(a) a shell member 24 and
(b) a storage pipe 23
2. a pan 21
3. a wire interconnector 45 suspending the pan from the hood.

Feed is delivered by an auger conveyor to the pipes 23 of a series of individual feeder pan assemblies. The terminal edges of pipe 23 and shell 24 form respectively with the conically-shaped bottom 33 of pan 21 two gates functioning as feed flow regulators (claim l). 1

Gate 34 controls feed flowing into the hood to provide limited storage of feed, and gate 39 controls flow into the feeding area (Claims 7 and 11).

Shell 24 is sloped “to prevent birds from resting thereon” and is positioned “more proximate with respect to the pan side than *777 to the apex of the pan conical portion ... to prevent feeding poultry from climbing bodily into the feeder” (Claims 7, 9).

Rib and strut members connect shell 24 and pipe 23 with pan 21 (Claims 1, 2, 8 and 10).

In attempting to distinguish over the pri- or art in the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), at trial, and before this court, Chore-Time repeatedly emphasized the two-gate configuration and the limited space between shell and pan.

THE REFERENCES

Van Huís ’419 discloses a feeder pan assembly for automated poultry feeding:

The feeder of Van Huís ’419 includes:

1. a hood consisting of:
(a) a shell member 28 and
(b) a storage pipe 40
2. a pan 26
3. wire interconnectors (not shown) suspending the pan from the hood.

In the Van Huís ’419 feeder, the terminal edges of pipe 40 and shell 28 form respectively with the conically-shaped bottom of pan 26 two gates functioning as feed regulators.

Myers discloses a feeder pan assembly for automated poultry feeding:

*778

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

D Now, Inc. v. TPF Toys Ltd.
267 F. Supp. 3d 1254 (N.D. California, 2017)
Otay Mesa Property, L.P. v. United States
127 Fed. Cl. 146 (Federal Claims, 2016)
Alberts v. Kappos
917 F. Supp. 2d 94 (District of Columbia, 2013)
Link Treasure Ltd. v. Baby Trend, Inc.
809 F. Supp. 2d 1191 (C.D. California, 2011)
Dalles Irrigation District v. United States
91 Fed. Cl. 689 (Federal Claims, 2010)
Arrow International, Inc. v. Spire Biomedical, Inc.
635 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D. Massachusetts, 2009)
International Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp.
599 F. Supp. 2d 1307 (S.D. Florida, 2009)
PrintGuard, Inc. v. Anti-Marking Systems, Inc.
535 F. Supp. 2d 189 (D. Massachusetts, 2008)
The Coca-Cola Co. v. PEPSI-COLA CO
500 F. Supp. 2d 1364 (N.D. Georgia, 2007)
Honeywell International, Inc. v. Universal Avionics System Corp.
288 F. Supp. 2d 638 (D. Delaware, 2003)
Vesture Corporation v. Thermal Solutions, Inc.
284 F. Supp. 2d 290 (M.D. North Carolina, 2003)
Ade Corp. v. KLA-Tencor Corp.
220 F. Supp. 2d 303 (D. Delaware, 2002)
McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc.
92 F. Supp. 2d 1216 (D. Kansas, 2000)
Braintree Laboratories, Inc. v. Nephro-Tech, Inc.
58 F. Supp. 2d 1293 (D. Kansas, 1999)
STX, Inc. v. Brine, Inc.
37 F. Supp. 2d 740 (D. Maryland, 1999)
Isogon Corp. v. Amdahl Corp.
47 F. Supp. 2d 415 (S.D. New York, 1998)
System Evergreen, et al. v. Concrete
D. New Hampshire, 1998
Mehl/Biophile International Corp. v. Milgraum
8 F. Supp. 2d 434 (D. New Jersey, 1998)
Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.
3 F. Supp. 2d 104 (D. Massachusetts, 1998)
John Charles Designs, Inc. v. Queen International Design, Inc.
940 F. Supp. 1516 (C.D. California, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
713 F.2d 774, 218 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 673, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 13626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chore-time-equipment-inc-v-cumberland-corporation-cafc-1983.