The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1915-07-15
IS UPHELD
CONTINUED from Page One.)


drawings, which to me Tin the case of
Devoe) only serve to mystify.
In my Judgment the only thing on
the market when johnson set to work
was the open crotch garment, and
nothing in the prior paper art suggest
ed, much less revealed the idea cover
ed by the first claim Of the patent
in suit, viz:
An garment having
permanently closed crotch, and
posterior opening extending from
a point near the waist line, to
point below the crotch in one leg
only, substantially as described
The effect Of this construction is to
put the slit or opening of the garment
on the buttock, so that when the bend
ing body demands slack to take up,
the opening furnishes the slack ESQ to
speak while in the erect position the
bullock itself partially fills out and
requires the additional material. The
removal of the opening from the me-
dian line or crease of the human body
afforded an obvious additional measure
of comfort; as did also the diminution
in the amount Of material necessary
for flap or cover.
The obvious appropriation Of the
foregoing advantages of construction
by defendant, renders any objection to
utility or novelty by him, quite futile;
but he insists that this shifting of the
opening and downward extension
thereof on one leg shows no invention
over the Princess Knicker Skirt sold
in small quantities as far back as 1896,
and the ITCHY drawers of Austrian pat
ent 1928 of 1907. (The other patents
referred to by defendant under this
head seem too irrelevant to require
comment: viz. Rochelle Br. 1343 of
1854; Anderson Br. 19,408 Of 1891 and
Mueller Br. 8,766 of 1860
The argument from the 'Knicker'
seems to me ill-founded because that
article was not an under-garment at
all, the lining was the under garment,
being as advertised detachable; it is
by no means clear that at best it was
more than drop fall pair of pants
such as small boys wear, and if it be
true that the fall was triangular, it is
obviously doubtful whether the slit
goes below the crotch. In short, the
revelation is so incomplete and uncer-
tain as to be unconvincing. 1t is no
ticeable also that the Knicker was adj
veTtised as with Patent Pending
Either that statement was false, or
there is in existence full description
of this article. In both cases one is
justified in doubling the advertis-
ing cut.
The ITCHY drawers have no perma
nently closed CROTCH they really con-
sist of pair of legs with overlapping
bullock coverings fastened to waist
band. They reveal nothing useful in
the art of making union garments
which as above indicated seems to me
quite different from that of producing
mere leg coverings.
I conclude that as long as producing
a new thing by very simple means, con-
stitutes invention, johnson can claim
that honor,-and he. ranks a good deal
higher on the honor list than the MAX
ers of carriers, neck ties, and domes
of silence who have of late years so
impressed some courts.
With respect to the file wrapper, I
think that Johnson always insisted up
on the proposition now embodied in
claim i, and got his demands over an
argument by the Primary Examiner
quite like that advanced in defendant IS
brief. The Examiner asserted that it
would not be invention, to sew up one
side of Devoes flap, and defendant
argues that no invention resides in
sewing up one side of the Princess
Knicker fall, (if it has two sides.
Both statements are true, but they dis
regard entirely the important fact that
if each act were done the flap or fall
left or created would have no such
aperture or slit to cover as Johnson
first thought Of and created
The second and third claims seem to
me rather unimportant variations of
the principle of construction stated in
the first. BY slight margin defen-
dant's garment has an opening ex-
tending from substantially the waist
line at one side of the center to
point on the opposite leg below the
crotch, such opening also is oblque.
Therefore these claims are infringed.
note that plaintiff IS commercial
garment is a much simpler affair than
that described in specification; the
matter is of no consequence, the patent
reads on the product of both parties.
Decree for compliments.