Home/U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey/Frank v. Wm. P. Mockridge Manuf'g Co.

Frank v. Wm. P. Mockridge Manuf'g Co.

65 F. 521, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 3006
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey·Decided January 5, 1895·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

ACHESON, Circuit Judge.

The bill charges the defendant with the infringement of the claims of letters patent Ko. 397,119, dated February 5,1889, granted to Henry C. Frank, the plaintiff, for an improvement in cuff fasteners. The claims are as follows:

(1) In a cuff fastener, the hinged hook, D, D1, D2, D3, and shank, E, in combination with each other and with the spring, M, and clasp, G, arranged for ■joint operation as herein specified. (2) In a cuff fastener, the swivel, E1, formed on a rigid extension of the shank, E, in combination with the hook, D, D1, D2, D3, and with the spring clasp, G, the fastener being adapted to serve right or left at will, while holding itself rigid longitudinally, as herein specified.

Upon the face of the specification it appears that this alleged invention is an improvement in a cuff fastener previously devised and patented by the plaintiff, which consisted of a spring clasp to take hold of the edge of the opening in the shirt sleeve, a rigid hook to engage with the buttonhole of the cuff, and a flexible connection, by means of a chain, between the clasp and the hook. The improvement consists in substituting for the flexible connection a right connection by means of a shank, and a hinged hook actuated by a spring in lieu of the rigid hook; the clasp turning upon the shank by a swivel joint. The proofs show that all the elements of the two claims in suit were old in this particular art. The prior patents relating to cuff holders, in evidence, show a swiveled spring clasp, a rigid shank, and a spring-actuated hinged hook, each acting in the same manner, and performing the same function, as thé like part in the patent in suit, although not met with in the identical combination of this patent. In view of the prior devices, it is extremely difficult to sustain the patent in suit under the decisions of the supreme court. Hendy v. Iron Works, 127 U. S. 370, 375, 8 Sup. Ct. 1275; Burt v. Evory, 133 U. S. 349, 359, 10 Sup. Ct. 394; Florsheim v. Schilling, 137 U. S. 64, 11 Sup. Ct. 20; Knapp v. Morss, 150 U. S. 221, 14 Sup. Ct. 81. If, however, it can'be affirmed that a combination involving invention in a patentable sense is here shown, the claims must be narrowly construed. Nat only does the prior state of the art require this, but the terms of the claims and the proceedings in the patent office imperatively demand a limited construction. In his specification the plaintiff describes his hinged hook thus:

“A hinge, e, connects the shank, B, to a hook, D, D1, D2, D3. When the device is engaged with a cuff, and conditioned for use, the part D2 extends •nearly or exactly in line with the part E. The part D2 extends nearly, at right angles to D3, and the part D extends in the general direction toward the •clasp, G, curved as shown. A short arm, D, extends from the hinge, e, nearly in the plane of the shank, E. This arm, D, is subject to the force of a flat spring, M, which is strongly and stiffly held on the inner face of the shank, E, by, rivets E2. *. * * Figs. 7 and 8 show modifications in the form of the hook in the part D2. Either form may be used. I prefer that shown in Figs. 4 and 5.”

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

Frank v. Wm. P. Mockridge Manuf'g Co., 65 F. 521, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 3006 (circtdnj 1895).

65 F. 521 (Frank v. Wm. P. Mockridge Manuf'g Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Standard Roller Bearing Co. v. Hess-Bright Mfg. Co.
145 F. 356 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania, 1906)
Williams v. Breitling Metal-Ware Manuf'g Co.
77 F. 285 (Seventh Circuit, 1896)