Electric Vacuum Cleaner Co. v. Jorgensen
This text of 290 F. 184 (Electric Vacuum Cleaner Co. v. Jorgensen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Rosenfield filed his application after the underlying Kenney patent, which made the vacuum cleaner art, had been granted. To any one familiar with this art,' the case at bar presents invention as the single and simple question of fact. What Kenney taught the art has been fully described in (1) Vacuum Cleaner Co. v. American Rotary Valve Co. (D. C.) 227 Fed. 998; (2) Vacuum Cleaner Co. v. Innovation Electric Co. (D. C.) 234 Fed. 924, affirmed 239 Fed. 543, 152 C. C. A. 421; and (3) Vacuum Cleaner Co. v. Bissell Carpet Sweeper Co. (D. C.) 242- Fed. 649.
What plaintiff claims is the gist of Rosenfield’s invention is the provision of a self-contained portable cleaner of a specified type having a slot contact sealing tool to insure efficient dirt removal; the provision of wheels, to insure proper normal contact between slot and surface to be cleaned, and constant and continuous use without tiring the operator; and also the provision of a pivoted freely swinging handle to insure maintenance at all times of slot contact. Much stress is laid upon the combination of the pivoted handle with the wheels.
The claims of the patent have many words and an excellent view of how little there was to invent is exemplified by the very lengthy claim 3 noted in the margin.1 In addition to large installations, the art [185]*185was developing to furnish small vacuum cleaners for use in homes and other places, where the surface areas to be cleaned were comparatively small. Wheels were known, handles were known, and small motors were known, although not so well developed as now. Stripped of elaborate description, and giving to the claim the most generous construction, all that this so-called invention amounts to is to utilize the Kenney principle with a wide slot, and adapt a handle so as to make the slot of a vacuum cleaner on wheels contact with the surface to be cleaned.
We are not unmindful of the importance of simple inventions. Kurtz et al. v. Belle Hat Lining Co., Inc. (C. C. A.) 280 Fed. 277. But to the man skilled in this art (Dick v. Barnett, C. C. A., 2d Circuit, 288 Fed. 799, decided April 10, 1923), this should not have been a problem. Quite irrespective, therefore, of the Hoover, the Arnold, and the Eureka prior uses, we think claims 1, 2, and 3 are void for lack of invention, unless limited strictly to each and every element thereof, and that claim 4 is wholly void.
We agree with appellee that the only novel feature is the discharge conduit, referred to in claims 1, 2, and 3 described, for example, at the end of claim 3 and in the specification (page 2, line 3 et seq.). A holding of validity, when claims 1, 2, and 3 are restricted to the precise construction therein set forth, will be of no service to'plaintiff, for, of course, defendant does not then infringe. Indeed, we see nothing to induce us to look with favor upon this patent granted after many years, during which the application was lying dormant and the commercial art was rapidly growing.'
Decree affirmed, with costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
290 F. 184, 1923 U.S. App. LEXIS 1783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/electric-vacuum-cleaner-co-v-jorgensen-ca2-1923.