Stedman v. Puritan Rubber Co.

11 F.2d 278, 1926 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 978
CourtDistrict Court, D. New Jersey
DecidedFebruary 25, 1926
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 11 F.2d 278 (Stedman v. Puritan Rubber Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Stedman v. Puritan Rubber Co., 11 F.2d 278, 1926 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 978 (D.N.J. 1926).

Opinion

BODINE, District Judge.

This is a suit for infringement of United States letters patent '1,482,952, issued to James Herbert Stedman, of Braintree, Mass., for reinforced rubber flooring and the process of making the same. The specifications, so far forth as pertinent, are as follows:

“One object of the present invention is to improve the process of making rubber sheeting, of the character hereinbefore described, in Such manner that the individuality of the various colors used is retained to a substantial extent in the finished article; the amalgamation and association being so controlled that the fine-grained, veined, or like appearance, so greatly desired, is successfully created and retained.

“A further object of the invention is to produce a variegated vulcanized rubber flooring, or the like, of blended rubber color stocks, which have as a component reinforcement a cotton or like fiber that has been mechanically finely comminuted and intimately associated with each color stock. When such color stocks are mixed, the reinforcement of cotton fiber in the condition described, so controls the movement of the colors during their mingling as to cause a resistance to amalgamation and thus retaining their color identities under a sufficiently prolonged period of mixing to form the fine grained or striated surface effects so much to be desired. Color stocks without fiber reinforcement blend .readily into blurred masses under repeated rolling on a mixing mill, and the surface produced does not have the distinctive color effects obtained by the use of fiber reinforcement, which effectually prevents such an interflow of the colors as to obscure their individuality, thus producing a clearly marked striated design instead of a smutty blur of color streaks. * * *

“The color stock produced by practicing the process being described is now ready for the final mixing and calendering. It will be understood that numerous batches are produced in this way, each having its own distinct color, and in this art 'white’ and 'black’ are both classed as colors. The different colored compounds in the selection desired for the particular flooring to be made are warmed up separately, preferably being brought to almost a soft mastic state. In this condition • the various batches of compounded rubber selected, each containing refined friction, are mixed together on the warming mill preparatory to calendering. A greater quantity of one colored" compound is used to form a base color for the flooring; this being selected in accordance with the design or type of flooring to be produced. This operation forms a rough blend of the colors throughout the- body or base color, and they,1 with the cotton fiber shreds extending throughout the mass, are drawn into more or less parallel relation; i. e., a distinct grain is being developed, the formation of which is materially promoted and aided by the presence of the cotton fiber which is an integral, component part of the material.

“The sheet delivered from the warming mill is thicker than is desired, and the blending of the colors is not completed. Hence a final mill operation is required to perfect the modeling of the design and strengthen the material. This final sheeting and finishing operation is by calendering. The calendering operation continues the development of the grain by drawing the shreds, to which state the cotton fiber has been reduced, longitudinally of the sheet being formed or lengthwise the direction of feed of the sheet through the calender. The drawing of the cotton fiber into the generally parallel relation described acts to modify and control the lengthwise extension of the various colors in the sheet, the resultant effect of which is a grained or similar surface on the sheet in which each color has its own individuality and yet mingles with the others in a distinctive and novel manner. The contained fiber in the various batches used in the whole mass influences and controls the direction of movement of the individual colors in a manner to cause them to resist amalgamation and association with each other, thus obtaining a [279]*279fine color grain which stands out distinctly in contradistinction to the blurred or smutted appearance of the surface when the same compounded rubbers are used, but without the addition of friction or otherwise introducing cotton or like fiber having an equivalent function.”

The claims in suit are 1, 2, 5, and 6 as follows:

“1. A variegated vulcanized rubber flooring, or the like, composed of a plurality of rubber color stocks, each of a different color, distinctively mingled with each other, said plurality of color stocks having as a component reinforcement a cotton or like fiber mechanically so finely comminuted and intimately associated with each color stock as to cause a resistance to amalgamation of the color stocks and thus retaining their individual identities under such a prolonged mixing as would cause unreinf oreed rubber color stocks to blend into blurred, masses.

“2. The method of making a variegated rubber flooring, or the like, which comprises forming a plurality of batches of unvuleanized rubber compound, in each of which cotton or like fiber is a component part, and each of which has its own distinctive color, treating said batches separately in a manner to mechanically comminute the contained fiber and at the same time cause an intimate and uniform mixture of the fiber and the rubber, then mixing together the plurality of color batches thus prepared by rolling the batches into a sheet, the association of the fiber and rubber being so intimate and the fiber being so finely comminuted as to serve to resist interflow of the separate colors sufficiently to permit repeated rolling operations without losing color identities and thus obtain a desirable striated design, and then vulcanizing the sheet.”

“5. The method of manufacturing variegated rubber sheets, consisting in making up separately a plurality of batches of stock •each of which is treated in the following manner: Masticating uncured rubber and

textile fiber threads into matted condition, then subjecting this matted mass together with color pigment and unvulcanized rubber compound to the action of a mixing mill, then rough-sheeting the colored mass, then passing this rough sheet through a refining mill a sufficient number of times to completely shred the fiber and reduce the mass to thin sheets; then combining the plurality of batches and mixing and rolling them into a variegated sheet, then calendering the sheet, and finally vulcanizing the calendered sheet.

“6. A vulcanized rubber flooring, or the like, characterized by a variegated • surf ace exhibiting a plurality of mingled color stocks, of which one is of greater quantity and forms a base or background, with the remainder distributed there through in masses of relatively small bulk, the colors mingling with each other, but distinctly retaining the individual color identity of each, the whole forming a striated pattern; and further characterized by an internal reinforcement of mechanically comminuted cotton, or like fiber, so finely comminuted and so intimately associated with the colored rubber as to form a component color interflow retardative medium.”

The defenses are noninfringement, noninvention, a complete anticipating in the prior art, and that Stedman was not the inventor of the patent in suit.

Both the plaintiff and the defendant manufacture rubber tile, in part containing fiber stock. These rubber tiles are mottled, and present a most pleasing appearance to the eye.

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

Related

Tolfree v. Wetzler
22 F.2d 214 (D. New Jersey, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 F.2d 278, 1926 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 978, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stedman-v-puritan-rubber-co-njd-1926.