Home/Sixth Circuit/Ventilated Cushion & Spring Co. v. D'Arcy

Ventilated Cushion & Spring Co. v. D'Arcy

229 F. 398, 143 C.C.A. 518, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 1573
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedDecember 7, 1915
DocketNo. 2627
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 229 F. 398 (Ventilated Cushion & Spring Co. v. D'Arcy) 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
Ventilated Cushion & Spring Co. v. D'Arcy, 229 F. 398, 143 C.C.A. 518, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 1573 (6th Cir. 1915).

Opinion

WARRINGTON, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from the decree in an infringement suit in which the bill was dismissed. The patent in suit, No. 840,522, was issued to E. O. Stotts January 8, 1907, and through mesne assignments the appellant ultimately (August 8, 1907) succeeded to the title. The suit was commenced June 25, 1908, and the patent and all rights under it were acquired by the Jackson Spring Cushion Company April 16, 1913, when an order was entered authorizing the Jackson Company to prosecute the suit for its use in the name o.f the plaintiff. The pleadings are in form substantially the same as they usually are in patent cases, where issues of infringement and lack of invention through anticipation are joined.

The patent relates to spring structures. The main object of the patentee was to produce a structure which would be adapted particularly for cushions in seats of automobiles and other cars or carriages where the springs might be subjected to sudden and violent jarring. The exterior form of the structure comprises three sides of a quadrangle, a curved rear side, and the dimensions of an ordinary automobile cushion. The interior structure consists of two sets of spiral springs, one set being nearly twice the height of the other, and all are disposed in rows. According to the drawings and the exhibits in evidence, the long springs are each in the form of an hour-glass, and are disposed in four rows, running from front to rear, and parallel with the two straight sides of the structure; the upper and lower coils of the-, outside rows are each fastened to the adjacent parts of two border-frame wires which surround the structure, one being maintained in the plane of the top surface and the other in that of the bottom surface of the structure; the inner portions of such outside rows of coils are each fastened at the bottom to straight wires, called braces, disposed lengthwise along such rows, and extending from the front to a [399]*399point near the curved rear side of the border-frame wire, which is maintained, as stated, at the bottom of the structure; and the outer portions of each of the lower coils of the two interior rows are fastened to straight wires (braces), which are disposed between such rows similarly to the other braces just mentioned. The short springs, which are each frusto-conical in shape, are disposed in three rows, occupying the spaces between the lower coils, and also portions of the spaces embraced within such coils, of the adjacent long springs. The short springs are all fastened at their lower and upper coils, the former to the lower coils of the adjacent long springs, and the latter to connecting wires disposed upon the upper coils.

We have thus attempted to describe a model (an exhibit) of plaintiff’s spring structure, called “Rough Rider,” which, it will be seen, differs somewhat from the structure illustrated by the drawings accompanying the specification; still these drawings will serve to illustrate both of such structures. The drawings follow:

[400]

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

Related

Elliott Mach. Co. v. P. B. Appeldoorn's Sons Co.
267 F. 983 (Sixth Circuit, 1920)
Vanmanen v. Leonard
248 F. 939 (Sixth Circuit, 1918)
Wise Soda Apparatus Co. v. Bishop-Babcock-Becker Co.
240 F. 733 (Sixth Circuit, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
229 F. 398, 143 C.C.A. 518, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 1573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ventilated-cushion-spring-co-v-darcy-ca6-1915.