Case Name: NATIONAL SAFETY GAS COCK CO., Inc., v. CONSOLIDATED GAS CO. OF NEW YORK
Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1919-10-23
Citations: 271 F. 539
Docket Number: 
Parties: NATIONAL SAFETY GAS COCK CO., Inc., v. CONSOLIDATED GAS CO. OF NEW YORK.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 271
Pages: 539–539

Head Matter:
NATIONAL SAFETY GAS COCK CO., Inc., v. CONSOLIDATED GAS CO. OF NEW YORK.
(District Court, S. D. New York.
October 23, 1919.)
Patents €=328—919,019, for safety cock for gas burners, void for lack of invention. , , ,,
, , ,, The Jakobson patent, No. 919,019, for a safety cock for gas burners, held void for lack of invention.
In Equity. Suit by the National Safety Gas Cock Company, Incorporated, against the Consolidated Gas Company of New York. Decree for defendant.
Decree affirmed (C. C. A.) 271 Fed. 539.
Munn, Anderson & Munn, of New York City, for plaintiff.
Thomas L. Wilder, of Utica, N. Y., for defendant.

Opinion:
MAYER, District Judge.
The sole question is that of invention, for, if the patent is valid, it is infringed. This is a crowded art, punctured by gradual mechanical improvements, consisting mainly in a rearrangement of fundamental elements.
Jakobson's safety cock for gas burners is undoubtedly a meritorious improvement over the prior art, and, within modest limits, has been commercially successful. But the improvement is of a character familiar to the courts, as within the expected knowledge of one skilled in the art. The simple nature of the art does nqt need exposition. Of the prior art, it is enough to cite Jakobson, No. 685,612; Shute, No. 756,066; Brown, No. 759,341, showing the centering projection; and Mattice No. 792,531. The only difference between the claim of the Shute patent and the patent in suit is that in the Shute patent the socket is in the lever, instead of the plug—a reversal of parts.
The Shute patent does not show a centering projection for the spring; but this is an ordinary mechanical expedient, as witness the Brown patent, supra. In view, of the foregoing, it must be held that the improvement of Jakobson does not rise to the dignity of invention.
Bill dismissed, with costs.