Home/Sixth Circuit/Dunn Mfg. Co. v. Standard Computing Scale Co.

Dunn Mfg. Co. v. Standard Computing Scale Co.

163 F. 521, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4571
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedMay 25, 1908
DocketNo. 1,761
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 163 F. 521 (Dunn Mfg. Co. v. Standard Computing Scale Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dunn Mfg. Co. v. Standard Computing Scale Co., 163 F. 521, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4571 (6th Cir. 1908).

Opinion

LURTON, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). It is not of consequence that the elements of each claim may be old, for the claims are for a combination, and if the combination be new, or if by a new mode of organization new or better results are obtained, the patent may be sustained. The first step, as shown by the history of the art, was a cutter organized with a scale which was capable of measuring equal proportional divisions of the pieces to be cut off; but if the cheese differed in weight or value another slip must be taken. This was taken by both McCroskey and E. P. Dunn, to say nothing of the devices which preceded them. The two patents in evidence issued to McCroskey and the later patent to F. P. Dunn, also in evidence, show mechanisms which by adjustment were adapted to cut proportional and equal divisions without regard to the weight of the cheese or the total value to be realized. For this reason, while involving some change in organization, they were held by the learned trial judge to anticipate. The validity of the patent in suit must turn upon whether such structural changes have been made in appellant’s organization of old elements as to produce a simple and more practical operating machine than those shown by the old art.

We may start with the significant fact that not one of the alleged anticipating devices proved a success as a practical and salable cheese cutter. Such devices are sold to retail grocers. The well-known conditions which a successful computing cheese cutter had to meet re[524]*524quired not only one which should be economical in construction, but above all else it must be simple in operation. This want of simplicity of operation was the trouble with those cutters from the old art which most nearly anticipate the patent in suit. They were undoubtedly clumsy and difficult of easy operation. Then they failed, and the device of the complainants is shown to have in large degree supplanted them. This fact does not always prove invention, for the methods of exploiting may sell an inferior machine over a superior one not pushed. But if there be doubt about the matter of utility, doubt about the merit of a new organization, the scale may be turned by evidence of public approval. We need not consider any of the numerous patents issued for cheese cutters, for it is plain that the patents 'to McCroskey and that to F. P. Dunn exhibit the last advances. If they do not so completely anticipate as to leave no room for H. F. Dunn, the patentee whose invention is in suit, his patent is sustainable. Indeed, we go further. The F. P. Dunn patent, whether conceded or not, is the closest approximation, and we shall for the most part confine ourselves to a contrast of that device with the patent in suit. As the case must turn upon certain parts only of the computing cutters put in contrast, we here show a figure taken from the brief of Mr. Dockwood, attorney for the appellants, showing the location of the graduated scales of the F. P. Dunn patent:

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

Related

O'LEARY v. Liggett Drug Co.
150 F.2d 656 (Sixth Circuit, 1945)
Gillette Safety Razor Co. v. Hawley Hardware Co.
60 F.2d 1019 (D. Connecticut, 1932)
Conway v. White
9 F.2d 863 (Second Circuit, 1925)
Weir Frog Co. v. Porter
206 F. 670 (Sixth Circuit, 1913)
Dunn Mfg. Co. v. Standard Computing Scale Co.
204 F. 617 (Sixth Circuit, 1913)
Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Toledo, P. C. & L. Ry. Co.
172 F. 371 (Sixth Circuit, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
163 F. 521, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunn-mfg-co-v-standard-computing-scale-co-ca6-1908.