Voices, Inc. v. Uneeda Doll Co.

32 F.2d 673, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 3849
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedMay 6, 1929
DocketNos. 293, 294
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 32 F.2d 673 (Voices, Inc. v. Uneeda Doll Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Voices, Inc. v. Uneeda Doll Co., 32 F.2d 673, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 3849 (2d Cir. 1929).

Opinion

MANTON, Circuit Judge.

These appeals are from final decrees dismissing bills in equity for infringement of patents No. 1,-507,826 and No. 1,588,354. A separate bill was Bled against each appellee, and separate answers were interposed hy them. Claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 33,14, and 15 are claimed to he infringed by the appellees’ Up-to-Date devices, and claims 2,11, and 12 by the appellees’ so-called German devices of the first patent.

Prior to these suits, in adjusting a previous litigation, the appellees each agreed in writing to admit the validity of the first patent and all the claims thereof, and agreed that they would not infringe the same, nor contest the validity or scope thereof, directly or indirectly. The devices are installed in dolls for simulating the crying sound of a baby — its pronouncing of ma-ma — and comprises a flexible bellows, a short tubular casing in which the bellows is inclosed, and which serves both to operatively support the bellows and prevent foreign matters, such as the stuffing of tho doll, from interfering with the proper function of the bellows. One end of the bellows is anchored, while its other end is free to move, and the anchored end of! the bellows is closed hy an anchoring disc, while the free end is closed by the weighted ■disc. Either disc, weighted or anchored, is provided with an opening, in which is placed a sounding reed. When in an upright position, the weight will act, upon the influence of gravity, to fully expand the bellows, whereby a volume of air will be entrapped, and, when the device is inflated, the weight will collapse the bellows, forcing the entrapped air through the rood, producing the sound.

[674]*674The claims of this first patent in suit, No. 1,507,826, have, as new features in devices of this kind (1) a conical bellows; (2) common closure for the bellows and easing; (3) utilizing pressure exerted between the closure disc and the casing to anchor the bellows to the easing; and (4) utilizing pressure exerted between the closure disc and the casing to effect a leak-proof jointure between the bellows and the inclosing disc.

The prior art reveals the Lloyd patent, No. 1,277,229, which had a cylindrical bellows, necessitating that the bellows be separated from the easing with a wide circular space. Lloyd closed his bellows by oné dise, and then closed the circular space between the bellows and the casing by a separate dise, to prevent foreign matter entering the same and blocking the operation of the bellows. The inventor, in the patent in suit, distinguishes his invention from Lloyd’s by providing a common closure member for the bellows and the casings; that is, the common member closed the easing, so that foreign matter could not enter the chamber, and in this the bellows works, and it also closed the end of the bellows: He used a common closure member, because of his conception of a conical bellows of sufficient diameter at one end to abut the inner surface of the casing.

In claim 14, it is provided that one end edge of the flexible wall is inwardly turned over the margin of the head and secured thereto, and the other end edge of the flexible wall is outwardly turned over an end edge of the easing wall, and means are provided for closing the latter end of the easing and fixing the edge of the bellows wall thereto. In claim 15 frictional, clamping means for effecting -an air-tight seal between the closure member and the flexible body wall of the bellows is provided; also a gravity movable head for the other end of the bellows, and frictional clamping means connecting the latter end of the flexible body wall of the bellows to the head is provided with a sound reed, through which the air is expelled from the bellows in the gravity movement of the head. Thus the inventor advances the idea of the frictional clamping means for effecting an air-tight seal. Other claims, 1,. 2,11,12, and 13, are in substantial accord.

The second patent in suit, No. 1,588,354, is directed to the bellows head or weighted end of the bellows, and provides a frictional clamp holding the movable or the weighted end of the bellows to the weight. Claim 5 calls for a bellows structure which has a tubular flexible wall, a head for one end of the bellows, and a clamping member adapted to engage the bellows wall and frietionally clamp it against the head.

The nearest patent of the prior art was Lloyd’s No. 1,277,229. There the inventor used a tubular easing and a flexible bellows, which was formed of a cylindrical tube of the same diameter throughout. The bellows was closed at one end by a small disc. In applying the closure 'disc, the bellows was first placed in a mandrel, one of the closure discs was there inserted in the end of the bellows, and then the ^protruding edges of the bellows at that end were turned over and folded or pleated against the outer face of the disc and glued together. The mandrel was then withdrawn, and the closure dise was inserted in the opposite end of the bellows, after which the protruding edges of the bellows at that énd were turned over the disc and glued together. The closure dise of the bellows was then glued to a dise of considerably larger diameter, by which the bellows was anchored to the casing; the larger dise was of a size to pass freely into and from the casing, and was attached to the easing solely by means of glue. The larger disc served to close the relatively wide circular gap between the bellows and easing, so that foreign matter, which might interfere with the operation of the bellows, could not enter into the chamber in which the bellows moved.

At that time the only bellows known to the art was formed of a cylindrical tube, and to insure efficient operation it was necessary to provide a casing of considerably larger diameter than the bellows, in order to provide a wide circular clearance between the bellows and the easing, or otherwise the dise at the free or weighted end of the bellows would impinge upon the inner wall of the easing, rendering the bellows inoperative. There were objections to this device. The inventor of the patent in suit conceived that by using a frustro-eonieal bellows, having the end anchored to the casing, of sufficient diameter to abut the inner face of the casing, that end of the bellows could be anchored directly to the end of the casing by a single dise, which additionally served as a common closure member, both for the end of the bellows and the end of the casing, thus dispensing with two discs of different diameters, one to close the bellows and the other to close the casing, and the difficult folding and gluing steps which were required with the use of the cylindrical bellows of the prior art. This was found by the art to effect economy in time, labor, and materials, and provided a more simple, compact, durable, and efficient construction. It was more than an agroupment [675]*675of old elements, for it brought into use two new elements, a conical bellows and the common closure for the bellows and casing. He secured a novel weighted end of the bellows, by clamping the smaller end of the conical bellows to the weight, instead of gluing it, as had been done. This combination of elements — some old and some now — should receive a liberal construction. Edwards Mfg. Co. v. Nat. Fireworks Dist. Co., 272 F. 23 (6th C. C. A.). The claims are entitled to fair and reasonable interpretation, such as will vitalize the grant. Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U. S. 45, 43 8. Ct. 322, 67 L. Ed.

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

Related

Group Therapy, Inc. v. White
280 F. Supp. 2d 21 (W.D. New York, 2003)
Frank B. Killian & Co. v. Allied Latex Corp.
94 F. Supp. 281 (S.D. New York, 1950)
Electric Machinery Mfg. Co. v. General Electric Co.
13 F. Supp. 940 (S.D. New York, 1936)
Better Packages, Inc. v. L. Link & Co.
68 F.2d 904 (Second Circuit, 1934)
Voices, Inc. v. Up-To-Date Mfg. Co.
41 F.2d 22 (Third Circuit, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
32 F.2d 673, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 3849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/voices-inc-v-uneeda-doll-co-ca2-1929.