Home/First Circuit/Trico Products Corporation v. Apco-Mossberg Corporation

Trico Products Corporation v. Apco-Mossberg Corporation

45 F.2d 594, 7 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 263, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 3706
CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit
DecidedNovember 26, 1930
Docket2469, 2470
StatusPublished
Cited by27 cases

This text of 45 F.2d 594 (Trico Products Corporation v. Apco-Mossberg Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Trico Products Corporation v. Apco-Mossberg Corporation, 45 F.2d 594, 7 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 263, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 3706 (1st Cir. 1930).

Opinion

WILSON, Circuit Judge.

These are cross-appeals from a decision of the District Court holding that one claim *596 of a patent for a windshield wiper was not a valid claim and that the second claim as stated in the patent was valid.

The Trico Products Corporation, assignee of the patent, appeals from the ruling of the court below that the first claim is invalid, and the Apco-Mossberg Corporation appeals from the ruling that the second claim is valid, and that it had infringed upon it.

The invention claimed by the plaintiff, as described in the patentee’s application and drawings shown below, consists of a wiping element and a U-shaped holder adapted to be attached to a wiping arm, operated either manually or automatically back and forth over the windshield glass of an automobile. The wiping element is composed of a back having a channel opening in which are inserted thin multi-plies of rubber of varying widths,' with the two outer strips of equal width but narrower than the others, and the next adjacent strips within also of equal width with each other, but wider than the outermost strips or plies, and a center of major strip or ply of still greater width than the adjacent strips, the rubbing edge of each strip on each side of the major ply to be approximately equidistant from each other; the wiping element being inserted in the U-shaped attachment, or holder, the arm or flanges of which are wider than the channeled back of the wiping element, which is fastened *597 in the TJ-shaped holder with a screw or bolt in such manner as to allow a free or rocking movement of the wiping element when attached to the ordinary wiping arm in common use in the art. The drawing and application describe a five-ply wiper, though the description of the invention is broad enough to cover multi-ply wiper of any number of plies. The several plies are fastened in the holder in such manner—which is one of the novelty features constituting the claimed invention—as to allow the plies to bend sufficiently when drawn -across the windshield by the wiper arm and with each alternate movement bring into contact with the glass the wiping edges of three plies, and also allow the several plies on the side in contact with the glass to open slightly and by capillary action to draw up between the plies in one motion a certain amount of the moisture on the glass which is expelled when the wiper is drawn back over the glass on the alternate and reciprocal motion.

*596 wKSjHhzt4PE4

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

Related

La Maur, Inc. v. L. S. Donaldson Co.
190 F. Supp. 771 (D. Minnesota, 1961)
Sherman v. Moore Fabrics, Inc.
179 F. Supp. 74 (D. Rhode Island, 1959)
Hazeltine Research, Inc. v. Avco Manufacturing Corp.
126 F. Supp. 595 (N.D. Illinois, 1954)
F. E. Myers & Brother Co. v. Goulds Pumps, Inc.
91 F. Supp. 475 (W.D. New York, 1950)
Hazeltine Research v. Admiral Corporation
87 F. Supp. 72 (N.D. Illinois, 1949)
Holtzer-Cabot Electric Co. v. Standard Electric Time Co.
28 F. Supp. 58 (D. Massachusetts, 1939)
Utah Radio Products Co. v. Delco Appliance Corp.
24 F. Supp. 328 (W.D. New York, 1938)
Steiner Sales Co. v. Schwartz Sales Co.
98 F.2d 999 (Tenth Circuit, 1938)
Mershon v. Sprague Specialties Co.
92 F.2d 313 (First Circuit, 1937)
Amy, Aceves & King, Inc. v. Tobe Deutschmann Corp.
19 F. Supp. 673 (D. Massachusetts, 1937)
Stewart-Warner Corporation v. Jiffy Lubricator Co.
81 F.2d 786 (Eighth Circuit, 1936)
Small v. Heywood-Wakefield Co.
13 F. Supp. 825 (D. Massachusetts, 1936)
Ruth v. Stearns-Roger Mfg. Co.
13 F. Supp. 697 (D. Colorado, 1935)
Freeman v. Premier Mach. Co.
11 F. Supp. 761 (D. Massachusetts, 1935)
Earnshaw Knitting Co. v. William Carter Co.
9 F. Supp. 910 (D. Massachusetts, 1935)
Rico Mfg. Co. v. Trico Products Corp.
75 F.2d 706 (First Circuit, 1935)
Wolff v. Jordan Marsh Co.
9 F. Supp. 516 (D. Massachusetts, 1935)
Johnson Bros. Engineering Corp. v. Caille Bros.
8 F. Supp. 198 (E.D. Michigan, 1934)
Chas. H. Lilly Co. v. I. F. Laucks, Inc.
68 F.2d 175 (Ninth Circuit, 1933)
Sheridan v. Silver-Brown Co.
4 F. Supp. 759 (D. Massachusetts, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
45 F.2d 594, 7 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 263, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 3706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trico-products-corporation-v-apco-mossberg-corporation-ca1-1930.