Home/Ninth Circuit/Deats Sash & Door Co. v. Eveleth

Deats Sash & Door Co. v. Eveleth

72 F.2d 100, 22 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 211, 1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 4458
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJuly 10, 1934
DocketNo. 7360
StatusPublished

This text of 72 F.2d 100 (Deats Sash & Door Co. v. Eveleth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Deats Sash & Door Co. v. Eveleth, 72 F.2d 100, 22 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 211, 1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 4458 (9th Cir. 1934).

Opinion

WILBUR, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from the final decree of the District Court holding appellee’s patent, No. 1,682,271, valid and infringed as to claim 3 thereof.

The patent in suit was issued to appellee .Eveleth on August 28, 1928, for a combination screen and sash door; the window sash being adjustable so that it may be lowered to a concealed position in the lower part of the door when not in use. Appellee Arcadia Sash & Door Company, a corporation, has been granted a license by the patentee to make, use, and sell the invention covered by the Eveleth patent. Claim 3 of the Eveleth patent, the only one involved in this suit, reads as follows: “In a door of the type described, the combination of a door having spaced panels on its lower portion, a window slidably mounted in the door and adapted to be slid either to a concealed position between the lower panels or to an operative position in the upper portion of the door, a lid hingedly mounted over one of the spaced panels and adapted to he swung to a position overlapping the other spaced panel to eoneeal the window when in closed position, said lid having a longitudinal groove near its inner end, an upturned metal weatherstrip element adapted to seat in the groove portion of the lid to form a watertight closure element, and a screen having its bottom sash member provided with an inwardly slanting surface to permit of the lid swinging in to engage with the waterstrip element.”

Appellant contends that the patent in suit is invalid because of lack of novelty and invention, and also because anticipated by pri- or patents which were pleaded in the answer. In support of the contention of invalidity of the patent in suit appellant introduced several prior patents an analysis of which shows that most of the elements set out in claim 3 of the patent in suit were present in the prior art.

The idea of a combination screen and sash door was not new with appellee Eveleth. [101]*101Three prior patents introduced in evidencie, namely, Dobelman Patent No. 810,923, Casey Patent No. 1,507,158, and Casey Patent No. 3,572,184, were also issued for “a door having spaced panels on its lower portion a window slidably mounted in the door and adapted to be slid either to a, concealed position between the lower panels or to an operative position in the upper part of the door” and “a screen.” In addition, Casey Patent No. 1,507,158 discloses two hinged sills forming a lid over the pocket between the spaced panels and intertilling to prevent leakage. These three patents were pleaded in the answer as anticipating the patent in suit.

Patent No. 1,273,098, issued to Bamberg and Merman for a disappearing window structure, discloses a hinged lid covering the pocket formed between lower spaced panels with a groove in the lid fitting over tlxo leg of an upturned metal weatherstrip in another hinged lid, Urns forming a water-tight joint. The Beals Patent, No. 1,282,367, and the Elenga Patent, No. 1,382,348, both for disappearing windows, disclose a lid covering the pocket formed by spaced panels with one edge of the lid overlapping a weather-strip to insure water-tightness. These and several other prior patents were introduced in evidence for the purpose of showing the state of the prior art.

Appellees state in their brief:

“While the prior art may, in a small .measure, show certain of the elements of the door covered by the Eveleth patent, it does not show all of the elements forming the novel combination covered by claim 3 of the patent. Claim 3 specified as one of its elements, ‘an inwardly slanting surface to permit of the lid swinging to engage with the watorstrip element’ to form a watertight closure element. No patents of the prior art show such an inwardly slanting surface or anything remotely like it.
“It is this slanting surface which provides the close relationship and compact arrangement of the sliding window, screen and watertight lid on the plaintiff’s door, as covered by claim 3 of the patent in suit, and it is this novel combination and arrangement of elements that made it possible to provide the plaintiffs’ novel and highly useful door of conventional form and thickness with combined screen and adjustable window. Likewise, tliis novel combination and arrangement of elements made the ‘Eveleth Door’ the first practical and successful door to take the place of the two doors previously and universally used, namely, a glass door and a screen door.”

Appellant concedes that there is a distinguishing feature in the Eveleth patent over the prior art in that it has “a screen having its bottom sash member provided with an inwardly slanting surface to permit of the lid swinging in to engage with the waterstrip element.” This permits the door to be of conventional form and thickness. The prior art had left only a narrow field for invention in the making of combination sash and screen doors and, as shown by the file wrapper introduced in evidence, it was the intention of the Patent Office to restrict claim 3 of the patent to the narrow limits set by the language used therein. Claim 3 as originally contained in the application for patent read: “A lid hingedly mounted on the middle portion of the door and adapted to be swung to a position to conceal the top of the window sash when the window is in lowered position, said lid also functioning as a weatherstrip element to prevent water leaking in.”

Appellant concedes that had claim 3 been allowed in this form it would have read on appellant’s door. This claim, however, was rejected by the Patent Office as not involving invention over prior patents cited. In the letter rejecting this and other elaims, the Examiner stated, “With particular reference to claim 7 it is observed that a valid combination may ho recognized between the slant on the screen, the window sash and the cover whereby the cover is permitted to co-act with the weather strip.” Claim 3 was then amended along the lines indicated in the Examiner’s letter, and was allowed in its present form. This history of claim 3 clearly indicates that it was not intended as a primary patent having a broad scope, but rather as an improvement patent, and limited to the form sot out in the claim. As originally contained in the application, the claim was too broad to amount to invention over the prior art, but when limited to the exact form of the door conceived by the patentee the claim was allowed.

In view of the prior art and the history of claim 3 of the patent, the patentee is only entitled, at most, to the precise device mentioned in the claim. Boyd v. Janesville Hay Tool Co., 158 U. S. 260, 15 S. Ct. 837, 39 L. Ed. 973. As so construed, claim 3 of the patent is not infringed by appellant, and it therefore becomes unnecessary to discuss further or decide the question of the validity of elaim 3 of the patent in suit.

The accompanying cross-section drawings of the Eveleth door and the Deats door will aid in clarifying the question of infringement.

[102]

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

Related

Winans v. Denmead
56 U.S. 330 (Supreme Court, 1854)
Boyd v. Janesville Hay Tool Co.
158 U.S. 260 (Supreme Court, 1895)
Liberman v. Ruwell
170 F. 590 (Third Circuit, 1909)
Harvey Hubbell, Inc. v. American Brass & Copper Co.
296 F. 47 (Second Circuit, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
72 F.2d 100, 22 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 211, 1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 4458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deats-sash-door-co-v-eveleth-ca9-1934.