Case Name: ROSE MFG. CO. v. E. A. WHITEHOUSE MFG. CO. et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1913-11-01
Citations: 208 F. 564
Docket Number: No. 1,739
Parties: ROSE MFG. CO. v. E. A. WHITEHOUSE MFG. CO. et al.
Judges: Before GRAY, BUFFINGTON, and McPHERSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 208
Pages: 564–565

Head Matter:
ROSE MFG. CO. v. E. A. WHITEHOUSE MFG. CO. et al.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
November 1, 1913.)
No. 1,739.
1. Patents (§ 328 ) — Validity and Infringement — Lamp Bracket por Vehicles.
The Rosenbluth patent, No. 883,973, for a lamp bracket for vehicles, designed for use on automobiles, claims 7, 8, and 10, held not infringed.
2. Patents (§ 328 ) — Validity and Infringement — Lamp Bracket for Vehicles.
The Hughes patent, No. 962,220, for a lamp bracket for vehicles, claims 5 and 6, held void for lack of invention.
3. Patents (§ 328 ) — Validity—Designs for Vehicle Number-Plate Supports.
The Rosenbluth design patents No. 41,3SS and No. 41,389, for designs for vehicle number-plate supports, are void as being for articles which are mechanical and functional and not ornamental.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey; Joseph Cross, Judge.
Suit in equity by the Rose Manufacturing Company against the E A. Whitehouse Manufacturing Company and Ee Compte Manufactur ing Company. Decree for defendants, and complainant appeals.
Af - finned.
For opinion below, see 201 Fed. 926.
Arthur E. Paige, of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
Besson, Alexander & Stevens, of Hoboken, N. J. (Charles A. Munn, T. Hart Anderson, and Orson D. Munn, all of New York City, of counsel), for appellees.
Before GRAY, BUFFINGTON, and McPHERSON, Circuit Judges.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a decree dismissing the bill in equity, in which the appellees, defendants in the court below, were charged with infringing certain letters patent of the United States.
The bill of complaint charged that the defendants were infringing four separate and distinct letters patent, two mechanical patents and two design patents; said patents being: Roseubluth, No. 883,973, April 7, 1908; Hughes, No. 962,220, June 21, 1910; Rosen-bluth design patent, No. 41,388, May 16, 1911; Rosenbluth design patent, No. 41,389, May 16, 1911.
The defendants were charged with conjointly embodying the alleged inventions of the several letters patent in the alleged infringing articles manufactured by them. Both of the mechanical patents, No. 883,973 and No. 962,220, relate to brackets arranged to support a lamp in detachable relation to a vehicle body, such as are adapted more especially for use on automobiles, to support and illuminate the number or license placed thereon. The design patents, No. 41,388 and No. 41,-389, are stated to be for new and original ornamental designs for vehicle number-plate supports. The decree of the court below holds that claims 7, 8, and 10, the only ones involved of patent No. 883,973, were not infringed by the defendants; that claims 5 and 6 of patent No. 962,220 are invalid, because of the absence of patentable invention in their subject-matter; and that the design letters patent are for mechanical and functional features, and not ornamental, and therefore invalid.
A careful consideration of the patents in suit, of the record before us, and of the elaborate oral and printed arguments submitted by counsel on both sides, satisfies us that there was no error in the decree of the court below, and the clear and convincing opinion of Judge Cross (201 Fed. 926) relieves us of the necessity of restating the grounds for that decree.
The decree of the court below is therefore affirmed.