Davison v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.

22 F. Supp. 461, 1938 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2433
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedFebruary 2, 1938
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 22 F. Supp. 461 (Davison v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Davison v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 22 F. Supp. 461, 1938 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2433 (S.D.N.Y. 1938).

Opinion

WOOLSEY, District Judge.

My judgment in this cause is that the complaint must be dismissed with costs to the defendant company, on the ground that the claims on which it is founded are invalid for want' of invention, and for lack of novelty by reason of prior use.

The complaint was dismissed without costs as against the defendant Klein at the end of the plaintiff’s prima facie case, for lack of proof, and without opposition by the plaintiff.

I. My ' subject-matter jurisdiction is based on the patent law.

There is not any question of venue, because the defendant company, a corporation of New York State, manufactures its rugs at Yonkers, New York, within this District.

There is not any question of the locus standi of the plaintiff herein, because the suit is by the 'patentee himself.

There is not any question of the omission of a necessary party herein, because the Hightstown Rug Company, although it is the only licensee of the plaintiff, is not an exclusive licensee, and hence does not need to be joined.

II. The patent involved herein has never been adjudicated.

It is a patent '.in a. very old art — the binding of a cut edge to prevent ravelling —and, consequently, it must be looked at against the background of what such an art always connotes.

The only question which, in my opinion, I need to consider is that of the validity of the patent.

Mr. Davison applied for the patent here in suit on January 11, 1935, and it was granted to him on May 14, 1935, as patent No. 2,001,527. It is described as a. patent for “Construction of Rugs of Pile Fabrics.” It contains five claims, and in this cause the plaintiff relies only on the first and the fourth.

In the specifications the method by which the patentee says that he escapes from the allegedly wasteful methods of the prior art are as follows:

“It is the present trade practice to charge $1.27% per yard for binding the cut edge of an Axminster fabric by a method and means which are standard practice in the 'trade and which consist in allowing one and one-half inches extra length of the fabric at any edge which is to be bound, plucking the pile tufts from that inch and half length and the full width of the fabric, binding the cut edge by the use of a sewing machine which overcasts the cut edge to an extent of about one-half inch with a coarse thread in stitches resembling those used for forming buttonholes. Then bending the plucked portion of the fabric backing backward upon and parallel with the face of the fabric opposite to the tufts, and hemming it to the body of the fabric by a line of machine stitches intermediate of the width of the overcasting. Obviously such a method of procedure is wasteful of the pile material of the fabric and' laborious and consequently costly. Moreover, the edge of a fabric thus finished doés not lie flat upon a plane surface but is upheld by the thick portion thereof turned under and, consequently, such raised edge of the fabric is subjected to greater wear than the body of the fabric and becomes threadbare.”

Further on in the specifications at page 1, column 1, line 46, to page 1, column 2, line 12, the patentee says (paragraphing mine):

(a) “ * * * The backing of said web is first coated with elastic cement in strips extending upon the opposite side of each line where the fabric is to be severed to form successive rugs.

(b) “Said strips of cement are then dried and the fabric severed intermediate of each strip to form cut edges of adjoining rugs without raveling either the pile or backing.

(c) “Each cut edge is thereafter overcast to the extent of about one-half inch with a coarse thread, such thread, encircling several, say five, of the backing wefts; the inner stitches thereof lying at the roots of the pile tufts.

(d) “The back of the fabric for about one inch from each cut edge thus overcast is then coated with a cement overlying the overcast stitches, and before that cement coating is dried,

(e) “it fs covered by a flat band of thin tough material, for instance, a closely woven textile tape which is thus secured to the back of the fabric by the cement, with one edge of said band flush with the cut edge of the fabric so that the fabric thus bound will lie flat upon a plane surface.”

In the specifications at page 2, column 1, lines 49 to 60, he gives the composition [463]*463of the adhesive which is used to fasten his rienforcing strip to the back of the rugor cárpet to be reinforced as follows:

“Although any suitable adhesive may be employed in the manner above specified, I have found it convenient to employ a mixture of approximately three parts of what is known to the trade as ‘filler paste’, to wit, a paste formed of flour of grain such as rye boiled in water, mixed with approximately one part of rubber cement, i. e. liquid para gum of the consistency of commercial liquid glue; the mixture forming the preferable elastic adhesive aforesaid, being of that consistency when applied, but capable of setting as quickly as animal glue or grain paste.”

The claims herein relied on are claims 1 and 4.

Claim 1 reads as follows (paragraphing mine) :

(a) “The method of finishing the cut edge of a pile fabric which includes severing the entire fabric, both backing and pile tufts, without loss of the material of either;
(b) “overcasting 'the backing wefts at and immediately adjoining said cut edge with stitches of thread extending over the backing at the roots of the pile tufts, and encircling said wefts at the back and cut edge of the fabric so as to bind the edge of the fabric and prevent raveling thereof;
(c) “coating the back of the fabric with clastic cement overlying said overcast stitches and an adjoining strip of the fabric backing; and
(d) “covering said cement with a flat band of tough material secured parallel with the plane of the fabric by said adhesive and with one edge of said band flush with the cut edge of the fabric.”

Claim 4 reads:

“A method as in claim 1, wherein the band is a tape of closely woven textile fabric.”

By the evidence given before me, it is shown that the adhesive the plaintiff used is known as an elastic cement which has a rubber base, as distinguished from that which is used by the defendant, which has a gutta-percha base and is thermoplastic.

III. Some of the unadjudicated prior patents in this and cognate arts, which seem to me to show that the plaintiff’s claims herein relied on cannot properly be considered to involve invention, are as follows:

A. Patent No. 464,066, granted on December 1, 1891, to Charles H. Foster, as assignor of the Singer Sewing Machine Company of New Jersey, for a work guiding attachment for over-seaming sewing machines, which discloses a sewing machine for serging of the edge of carpets and contains, it seems to me, all the elements of the patent, except the tape with the adhesive on it.

B. The next patent which I think should be looked at in this connection is the patent No. 1,038,095, granted on September 10, 1912, to George H. Davis of Portland, Maine, as assignor of E. T.

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

Related

Curtiss-Wright Corporation v. Link Aviation, Inc.
182 F. Supp. 106 (N.D. New York, 1959)
Knaust Bros. v. Goldschlag
28 F. Supp. 188 (S.D. New York, 1939)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 F. Supp. 461, 1938 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davison-v-alexander-smith-sons-carpet-co-nysd-1938.