Expanded Metal Co. v. General Fireproofing Co.

164 F. 849, 90 C.C.A. 611, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4694
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedOctober 16, 1908
DocketNo. 1,783
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 164 F. 849 (Expanded Metal Co. v. General Fireproofing 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
Expanded Metal Co. v. General Fireproofing Co., 164 F. 849, 90 C.C.A. 611, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4694 (6th Cir. 1908).

Opinion

SEVERENS, Circuit Judge.

This is a suit brought by the owner of letters patent No. 527,242, granted October 9, 1894, to John F. Golding, for a “Method of Making Expanded Sheet Metal,” complaining of the infringement thereof by the defendant. In the court below the patent was held to be invalid upon the grounds stated by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in its opinion in the case of Bradford v. Expanded Metal Company, the complainant here, reported in 146 Fed. 984, 77 C. C. A. 230.

On this appeal much reliance is placed by the appellee upon the decision in that case, and rightly so, for this court would be strongly in-dined to follow a decision of that learned court, if made of the same questions and upon the same record as presented in the case before us. The question of the validity of the patent is the same; but we have noi means of knowing what evidence was adduced in the case in the Third' Circuit, and so are unable to determine to what extent, if at all, our duty to follow that court should constrain us. At all events, our impressions upon the questions involved are so strong that we feel compelled to express an independent judgment.

The art of expanding sheet metal had made considerable progress at the date of Golding’s invention; and the product had been used for various purposes, such as latticework, trellises, screens, fencing, lath, and the re-enforcement of concrete structures. In general, it may be said it consisted of slitting sheet metal into narrow strands by making more or less short, parallel slits of equal length along the length of the sheet alternately; that is, in such way as that each alternate line of slits should equally overlap the ends of the adjacent slits in the first line of slits, and so on until the sheet was slitted. The sheet was then stretched laterally^ the result being that the slitted strands and the uncut portions between them formed diamond-shaped meshes of nearly equal size and shape, but not of the desired uniformity, owing, doubtless, in large measure, to the variations in the thickness and texture of the sheet of metal. The sheet was shortened somewhat, but made much wider. This method had been improved upon, and notably by an invention of Golding and Durkee, patented by letters No. 320,242, dated June 16, 1885. We shall not stop to enter into a further description of other earlier methods, which were the subjects of patents in this and 'other countries, for the reason that it sufficiently appears that the Golding and Durkee invention just mentioned was the most advanced and [851]*851had proved the most successful at the date of the invention which is the subject of the patent in suit. It seems desirable to describe the Golding and Durkee invention, patented in 1885, as we think it is the proper datum from which to reckon the novelty and utility of the subsequent invention of the Golding patent involved in the present suit. It consisted in—

“beginning at one side and corner and making an incision within the side of the metal, thus forming a strand which is simultaneously pressed away from the piano of the metal in a direction at or near a right angle, the position the strand assumes depending upon the distance it is moved from the plane of the metal, a' in the drawing shows the first cut made. The next step in this process is to make additional incisions, as is shown at b% b2, and in the figure here attached, further within tho plate of metal, and leaving uncut sections at the ends of the cuts, and, simultaneously with the cutting, the strands are pressed away from the plane of the metal at the angle and to the desired position, as above described. Thus each row of meshes is simultaneously cut and formed from a blank piece of metal without buckling or crimping the blank. In the act of cutting and forming the meshes, the finished article is contracted in a line with the cuts or inedsions, and consequently it is shorter in this direction than the piece from which it was cut, but is greatly lengthened in a line at an angle to the plane of the original sheet nlate or blank.”

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

Related

Hazeltine Research, Inc. v. General Electric Co.
183 F.2d 3 (Seventh Circuit, 1950)
Lowell v. Triplett
77 F.2d 556 (Fourth Circuit, 1935)
Michigan Carton Co. v. Sutherland Paper Co.
29 F.2d 179 (Sixth Circuit, 1928)
Underwood Typewriter Co. v. Fox Typewriter Co.
181 F. 530 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Michigan, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
164 F. 849, 90 C.C.A. 611, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/expanded-metal-co-v-general-fireproofing-co-ca6-1908.