Rioux v. Kempner

74 F.2d 932, 24 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 236, 1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 3571
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
DecidedJanuary 24, 1935
DocketNo. 5228
StatusPublished

This text of 74 F.2d 932 (Rioux v. Kempner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rioux v. Kempner, 74 F.2d 932, 24 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 236, 1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 3571 (7th Cir. 1935).

Opinion

ALSCHULER, Circuit Judge.

The bill charged infringement of United States Patent No. 1,370,913, March 8, 1921, for a “Composition of Matter for Doughnut Mix.” Upon the hearing the District Court held the patent void for want of invention and for anticipation, and dismissed the bill for want of equity. The quite brief specification1 concludes with this single claim:

“I claim: A semi-liquid composition of matter consisting of milk and flour, with the other ingredients necessary to a doughnut, in such proportions that due to the amount of milk present, the mix is capable of being- poured into hot grease to form a doughnut.”

However detailedly the specification sets forth the ingredients of a doughnut mix and describes the somewhat complicated process of bringing together the enumerated ingredients and then cooking them, it is plain from the file wrapper that the Patent Office did not intend to confer a monopoly for employing the ingredients composing the mix, nor for the process of mixing the ingredients and producing doughnuts ; and from the claim itself it is equally clear that the granted monopoly did not extend to a process for making doughnuts, nor for doughnuts composed of the enumerated ingredients.

It is equally plain that the patent does not cover mechanism of any kind for the production of doughnuts from any sort of mix. The essence of the claim seems to lie in the inclusion in any mix of enough milk to render the mix sufficiently fluid for pouring, and this quite regardless of whether the mix flows automatically from a hopper into a machine or is poured by hand from a pitcher or other receptacle into a doughnut form, and thence into hot grease for cooking.

The only advance which the patent purports to claim is in the fluidity of the mix [934]*934due to the milk content. In other words, there is formed a batter which, after the manner of batters, is of such fluidity that it will pour by gravity. Webster defines batter as “a semiliquid mixture of several ingredients, as of flour, eggs, milk, etc., beaten together and used in cookery.” And who does not recall from earliest memory the various cakes and pastries produced from batters of different kinds and degrees, which were poured from spoons, ladles, pitchers and other containers, onto hot griddles or stove tops or waffle irons, or into greased skillets or hot deep fat?

In our judgment the increase or decrease of the milk or other liquid content of a mixture for the sole purpose of producing or increasing or diminishing the fluidity of the mix so that it will flow more or less readily as may be .desired, does not attain unfo the dignity of invention.

In the Examiner’s communications (see marginal note 2), his first and second rejections of the claim were, in our judgment, well grounded in his holding that the recipe disclosed did not involve invention, and that the ingredients were all well known. But, at any rate, the patentee acquiesced in the rejections, and predicated his final claim as allowed on the variation in proportion of a single ingredient (milk) instead of all of them. Surely if invention was not involved in the combining of all the enumerated ingredients, invention did not reside in the employment of one of them in combination with the others. We think this claim was improperly allowed.

Whether the precise proportion of milk to the other ingredients of a doughnut mix as pointed out in the specification was employed prior to the invention date of the patent is not here material, where no claim is directed to a mix of those ingredients or to the proportions as set forth in the specification.

From this record it is apparent to us that the court properly held the patent void and dismissed the bill for want of equity.

The decree is affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
74 F.2d 932, 24 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 236, 1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 3571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rioux-v-kempner-ca7-1935.