Horn v. Bergner

68 F. 428, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 3469
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maryland·Decided May 13, 1895·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

MORRIS, District Judge.

The complainant is an unincorporated joint-stock company, under the laws of Hew York, suing by its president, as the assignee of patent No. 488,630, December 27, 1892, granted to Alfred C. Hafely, who is also a member of the complainant company. The defenses are want of novelty, want of patentability, want of notice of the patent, and noninfringement. The patent is [429] for a method of making corners, covers, and like parts for hooks, boxes, and similar articles of celluloid or kindi'ed material. It appears from the testimony that sheet celluloid, which is made of ex-tremo thinness, and which in sheets is highly elastic, dense, and durable, and susceptible of a high polish, and may be tinted of any color, and which can be rendered plastic by heat, had, before the alleged invention of Hafely, been used as a veneering for the covers of albums and books. The sheet of celluloid having been embossed by any desired design by being pressed between heated dies, and, being cut to proper sizes, was cemented to the foundation for the cover, and the edges were turned over upon the cover andimade fast by cement or glue or small metal fastenings. The result of this method was very unsatisfactory, particularly at the corners. The beauty of the sheet celluloid largely consists in its resemblance to solid ivory, and to the impression on the sight and senses that it is not a thin veneer, but that the cover was made of a solid material. In turning the sheets of celluloid over the corners, prior to Hafely’s alleged invention, there was always some wrinkling, or fullness, or want of smoothness, or physical indication of some kind which disclosed that the celluloid was but a thin, applied veneer, and this marred the effect and mer-chantableness of the result. So much was this the case that it was usual to make the sides of the cover of celluloid, but to make the covers of plush, so as to conceal this defect, and for this reason the use of celluloid for album covers was quite limited. Hafely, with other associates in the complainant joint-stock company, was engaged in the manufacture of albums, fancy boxes, and similar articles, and for some time was unable to overcome this difficulty, which, for the purposes of manufacture, was a great obstacle in the use of sheet celluloid. After trials and experiments, he hit upon the method which he has patented, and which has now produced results which are very beautiful and artistic, and which have obtained great commercial success. The covers of such albums and books and similar articles, in order to have the substantial appearance required by the ornamental figures embossed on the sheet celluloid veneering, must be made thick, of wood or paper boards, or filled in with padding, and the corners must not be sharp and rectangular, but should be rounded and beveled, or cup-shaped, as the complainant’s expert has called them. The discovery of Hafely was that, while the celluloid sheet veneering could not be bent to the shape of these corners, if a die was prepared which had the exact shape of the corners, and was heated, and the whole cover, with the celluloid veneering attached, was forced into the die, the celluloid took the exact shape of the corners. The heat rendered the sheet plastic, and conformed the molecular arrangement of its substance to the required form, and the polish of the surface was not impaired, and the appearance was that of a solid block of celluloid or ivory. The pressing of the cover or corners into the heated die left the sheet with the edges turned up at right angles to the plane of the cover, and • he found that if these edges were by the application of a heated iron turned over flat against the upper side of the cover, and sufficient [430] heat applied at the corners to blend the lapping material together, then the appearance was that of a solid cover, durable, and pleasing to the eye and touch. Hafely’s specification is as follows:

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

Horn v. Bergner, 68 F. 428, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 3469 (circtdmd 1895).

68 F. 428 (Horn v. Bergner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Eversharp, Inc. v. Fisher Pen Co.
204 F. Supp. 649 (N.D. Illinois, 1961)
Callison v. Dean
70 F.2d 55 (Tenth Circuit, 1934)
American Bank Protection Co. v. City Nat. Bank of Johnson City
181 F. 375 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Tennessee, 1909)
Morton Trust Co. v. American Car & Foundry Co.
161 F. 546 (D. New Jersey, 1908)
Wilkins Shoe-Button Fastener Co. v. Webb
89 F. 982 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Ohio, 1898)