Lemley v. Dobson-Evans Co.

243 F. 391, 156 C.C.A. 171, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2128
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedJune 5, 1917
DocketNo. 2936
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 243 F. 391 (Lemley v. Dobson-Evans 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
Lemley v. Dobson-Evans Co., 243 F. 391, 156 C.C.A. 171, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2128 (6th Cir. 1917).

Opinion

DENISON, Circuit Judge.

In a suit brought by the Dobson-Evans Company against Eemley, based upon the first four claims of patent to Schade, No. 819,461, May 1, 1906, for improvements in loose leaf binders, the District Court thought claims 1, 2, and 4 were valid and infringed, and the usual interlocutory decree was entered. Eemley, the defendant below, brings this appeal. There were several earlier binders of the Schade type. Thejr comprised two or more leaf-holding rings or eyes centrally divided into half rings and with the halves hinged together so that they were adapted to be opened and receivé loose sheets with prepared punched holes and then to be closed, whereby the sheets were strung upon the rings. They also embodied a holding cover or plate, whereby the rings and their hinges were retained in proper relative position. The closest resemblance to Schade, in both form and function, is found in Pitt, two years earlier. See Irving-Pitt Co. v. Twinlock Co. (D. C.) 220 Fed. 325; Id. (C. C. A. 2) 225 Fed. 1022, 140 C. C. A. 603; Irving-Pitt Co. v. Trussell (C. C. A. 2) 240 Fed. 730, - C. C. A. -; Irving-Pitt Co. v. Blackwell (C. C. A. 8) 238 Fed. 177, - C. C. A. -. See 240 Fed. 730, for drawing. Pitt provided a back plate of the desired length, and bent so as to form, in lateral cross-section, the arc of a circle with inturned lips. Within this back plate and under the retaining lips he put two rigid flat plates side by side, hinged together, so that the plates constituted hinge leaves, their combined width being slightly greater than the chord of the back plate arc. The back plate was made of resilient material, and the result was that the hinge between the two flat plates would form a toggle joint so that they would naturally fall into an obtuse angle, either above or below the line of the lips of the back plate, and be held there by the spring action of the back plate, and their motion in either direction would be limited by the back plate or its lips. To the two opposite hinged plates, Pitt fastened the lower ends of his half rings. When the upper meeting ends of the ring sections were forced apart, the toggle joint would spring into its upper position and the ring would be held open. When the ring sections were closed, the joint would spring into the lower position and hold them there. The resiliency of the back plate, yielding as the toggle-jointed back •plates passed the horizontal plane, imparted to the ring sections this capacity to be held in either position in which they were placed. Schade adopted- the Pitt structure, except that he substituted for each of Pitt’s two flat' toggle-jointed plates, to which ring sections were soldered or otherwise rigidly fastened, a continuous wire, the first part of which was held 'longitudinally and pivoted under one lip of the [393]*393back plate, the second part of which was bent out into a lateral plane so as to go slightly past the center of the back plate and then back again to, the edge of it, forming a hinge leaf, and the remaining part of which was then developed into a half ring in a plane approximately at right angles to the planes both of the first and second parts. When two of these wire sections were opposed and in suitable engagement provided at the point where they met, they constituted a toggle-joint operating like Pitt. This construction is shown in the drawing herewith reproduced and is recited in claim 1 shown in the margin.1

It is not claimed that Schade is anticipated in the complete sense by the prior art, but the defense is that, in view of this art, the change made by him did not involve invention. Rightly to apprehend this art, further structures must be described. By, an English patent, Lindner bad shown a continuous wire half ring, leaf oil-set and edge pivot of a form very close to Schade’s corresponding parts; but the two leaf off-sets did not reach each other, and were held in one position by a sliding clamp instead of being held in alternative positions by a spring pressure. Blackmer and Robson also showed two wires, each developed into a half ring, and each containing an off-set portion like Schade. In this, as in Lindner, the two off-set portions did not touch each other, but, unlike Lindner and like Schade, the off-set portion served as a lever which, under spring pressure, held the ring open or closed. An encasing spring member formed an abutment against which this lever rested. Normally, it held the ring closed, and when the ring was forced open, the lever passed the point where the spring would throw it back and the spring held it open. McMillan, instead of using Pitt’s flat plates, carried his ring sections themselves to the point of meeting where they were united with a hinge or pivot rod, and he so mounted them in the edges of the base plate that they constituted the spring pressed higgle-joint. The following selected figures from Lindner, Blackmer and Robson, and McMillan illustrate the description that has been given.

[394]

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

Related

Penmac Corp. v. Esterbrook Steel Pen Mfg. Co.
108 F.2d 695 (Second Circuit, 1940)
Penmac Corporation v. Esterbrook Steel Pen Mfg. Co.
27 F. Supp. 86 (S.D. New York, 1939)
ACCO Products, Inc. c. Wilson-Jones Co.
22 F. Supp. 682 (D. Massachusetts, 1938)
Less Car Load Lots Co. v. Pennsylvania R.
10 F. Supp. 642 (S.D. New York, 1935)
Hommel Mfg. Co. v. East Side Mfg. Co.
16 F.2d 1008 (N.D. California, 1926)
Alexander Milburn Co. v. Davis-Bournonville Co.
270 U.S. 390 (Supreme Court, 1926)
Naceskid Service Chain Co. v. Perdue
1 F.2d 924 (Sixth Circuit, 1924)
Davis-Bournonville Co. v. Alexander Milburn Co.
1 F.2d 227 (Second Circuit, 1924)
Davis-Bournonville Co. v. Alexander Milburn Co.
297 F. 846 (S.D. New York, 1924)
Diamond Power Specialty Co. v. Merz Capsule Co.
276 F. 274 (Sixth Circuit, 1921)
Higgin Mfg. Co. v. Watson
263 F. 378 (Sixth Circuit, 1920)
Concrete Appliances Co. v. Meinken
262 F. 958 (Sixth Circuit, 1920)
Jones v. Sykes Metal Lath & Roofing Co.
254 F. 91 (Sixth Circuit, 1918)
Wagner v. Meccano Ltd.
246 F. 603 (Sixth Circuit, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
243 F. 391, 156 C.C.A. 171, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lemley-v-dobson-evans-co-ca6-1917.