Rosenberg v. Standard Food Products Corp.

331 F. Supp. 1065, 171 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 545, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11681
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York
DecidedSeptember 13, 1971
DocketNo. 68-C-530
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 331 F. Supp. 1065 (Rosenberg v. Standard Food Products Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rosenberg v. Standard Food Products Corp., 331 F. Supp. 1065, 171 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 545, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11681 (E.D.N.Y. 1971).

Opinion

BARTELS, District Judge.

Plaintiff Rosenberg, the owner of a patent, brings this suit against Standard Food Products Corporation (“Standard”), a wholesale liquor dealer, for infringement.1

The patent in question (United States Patent 3,304,371) was filed on September 25, 1963 and granted on February 14,1967. The claimed invention is an “Information Processing System” which, in essence, outlines a method for recording information from incoming telephone calls, transferring the information to punched cards, and processing the cards through a computer. The system was devised in order to expedite the processing of telephone orders made by outside salesmen by reducing the number of telephone answering personnel and eliminating excessive conversation between such personnel and the caller, thus freeing telephone lines more quickly during peak ordering periods. According to the pat[1066]*1066ent, the system operates essentially as follows:

Step 1. A salesman desiring to place an order with a company dials a specific telephone number;
Step 2. A “switching device” (located at a telephone company facility) connects the caller to one of several unoccupied “lines” associated with that number. Thus, if any lines are busy, the device will connect the caller with a vacant line;
Step 3. Each line is connected to a separate tape recording machine. Upon connection with a line, the caller may receive a pre-recorded announcement, in which he is referred to by a code number, instructing him to dial another number or announcing information concerning availability of stock or other information relevant to the solicitation or placement of orders;
Step . 4. After the announcement is completed, the caller dictates his order to the recording machine, referring to himself, the nature of the goods sold, the quantity of goods ordered, etc., all by reference to a pre-determined numerical code;
Step 5. The recorded orders are periodically played back through earphones to a key-punch operator who transfers the coded information to punched cards;
Step 6. At this point, two alternative steps may occur.
(a) The punched cards may be fed by someone directly to a computer or other machine for processing punched cards. This could only be accomplished if the computer is on the same premises as the recorders and keypunch machines. In this case, the information processing is completed.
(b) If the computer is located in an area remote from the information receiving center, the punched cards are fed first to a “read transceiver,” which converts the cards to electrical impulses, then to a “signal unit” which converts the impulses to signals suitable for transmission over a telephone line, then across the telephone wires to another signal unit at the computing premises which re-converts the telephone signals to electrical impulses, and finally into a “punch-transceiver,” which converts the impulses to punched cards duplicating the original cards. These cards are then fed into an appropriate computer or other punched card receiver for processing.

All of the foregoing steps through step 6(a) constitute Claim 1 of plaintiff’s patent, the subject of the suit herein. Claim 2 involves essentially the same system except it employs step 6(b) in place of step 6(a). Claim 2 is not involved in the instant litigation. Appended hereto is the schematic representation of the system as affixed to the patent.

Prior Art

Plaintiff’s first witness, Jack Cohen, president of Star Liquor Wholesalers (“Star”), testified that: Prior to 1963 Star had been using a “Ramac” system, in which salesmen would telephone their orders through a manual switchboard to the order department; order clerks would take down each order on printed order forms containing a list of products with a corresponding code number for each item on the form; a code number was also assigned to each salesman and each customer; a key-punch operator would then read the form and punch IBM cards according to the proper code; the cards would then be fed into a computer for processing; Star presently uses the Rosenberg system with Rosenberg’s permission. The primary differences between Star’s order processing system pre-Rosenberg and the Rosenberg system were that (1) in the former system the salesmen reported their orders in words rather than in code, (2) a manual switchboard, rather than an automatic recording machine, received the calls, and (3) the orders were taken down by order clerks and not recorded on tape.

Plaintiff Rosenberg testified as to the terms of his patent and the operation of the system. He also conceded that every piece of apparatus employed in his sys[1067]*1067tem and cited in the patent was known in the art and was in public use at the time of his invention. He also admitted that the patent does not describe a particular code nor require that any piece of apparatus be specially adapted to function within his system.

Ira Schattmann, Executive Vice President of Standard, testified that: As early as 1962, Standard used a “Soundseriber” recording device in connection with its receipt and processing of orders; while most of the telephoned orders were taken directly by order clerks, the switchboard would connect the caller with the Soundscriber when the order clerks were busy with other callers; the device would record the order and at a later time an order clerk would transcribe the order from the record on the Soundscriber ; no computer was used at Standard at this time, although punched cards were used in conjunction with an IBM billing machine prior to 1960; Standard installed an IBM computer in 1964; the present system uses an IBM computer as well as a “Code-A-Phone” recording machine, which plays an announcement and records telephoned orders.

Defendant made no effort to rely upon any prior patents for its prior art claim except the Poylo patent, which related solely to Claim 2, not here asserted to be infringed. Its expert witness, Commander Joseph L. Richey, a long-time employee of the communications and public relations departments of American Telephone and Telegraph Company, testified that the Rosenberg patent brought out “no new factors” at the time of its filing. He stated, however, that, to his knowledge, it was the first instance where tape recorders were connected to a number of different lines with the same telephone number. He further testified that connecting an “electronic secretary” (a recording device which was introduced to commercial use in 1962 which announced a recorded message and then recorded the caller’s message) to a single telephone line would have been “perfectly obvious” to somebody who knew about the telephone business. He also thought that there was nothing about connecting four such recorders to four lines ’ that would not have been obvious to one skilled in the art.

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

Related

Sylvania Electric Products, Inc. v. Brainerd
369 F. Supp. 468 (D. Massachusetts, 1974)
Rosenberg v. Standard Food Products Corporation
456 F.2d 1335 (Second Circuit, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
331 F. Supp. 1065, 171 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 545, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenberg-v-standard-food-products-corp-nyed-1971.