Court Opinion

ID: 8859070
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 17:41:59.092753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:05:45.576642
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
(May 19,1897.)
Banning & Banning, for complainant.
Nelson Davenport, for defendant.
SEAMAN, District Judge.
Rehearing was granted in this case for the production of further and newly-discovered evidence upon the issue of anticipation. This evidence on behalf of the defendant presents two devices: (1) A fireplace heater, called the “New Golden Bun,” purporting to have been manufactured by James Spear at Philadelphia, put upon the market about 1883, and exhibited in a catalogue dated in 1884. (2) A stove called the “Standard Base Burner,” manufactured by the Magee Furnace Company, of Boston, and claimed to have been placed upon the market-in 187C>. The Spear device is the only one which seems to me to be entitled to serious consideration. The testimony relating to the Magee stove shows an original construction in which the upper mica section was slightly curved or in-turned, and above this a section or ring which would he capable of use as a reflector, to some extent, if properly plated or polished for that object. No exhibit stove is produced by the defendant of this form, but it is asserted by some of the witnesses that this ring was polished and served as a reflector; and one witness states that a stove which was made for exhibition at the Philadelphia Centennial had the ring section nickel plated. This construction was abandoned after the first season, and the testimony is too indefinite to establish actual provision for use of the feature of reflection which is dominant in the complainant’s device. If the feature was present in any degree, it was as a mere incident, and not so far developed or recognized as to anticipate the patent in suit. And, on the other hand, the com*380plainant produced a stove of that make, which was identified as one-of those named by the defendant’s witness as made and sold, by tbe Magee Company, and of the pattern referred to, in which the under side of the ring was unpolished, and it was conceded that it could not serve as a reflector. The Spear fireplace device, called the “Hew Golden Sun,” has an arched border or frame nickel plated, which serves to reflect the rays of light and heat to a certain extent at the sides, although not at the top. The only witness upon this point "is the designer and manufacturer, James Spear, who gives enthusiastic description- of the “dazzling glow” which was produced. A cut of it is shown in his catalogue of 1884, and the feature of reflection is referred to in the context But there is no provision of an in-turned mica section and reflector serving in any manner to reflect the rays of light and heat from the upper surface of the fire pot, which is the distinguishing feature of the complainant’s device, and gives it the large measure of success shown in this record. While there is incidental use of the feature of reflection, there was, in my opinion, no such recognition of its benefits as should appear to constitute anticipation in view of the success obtained by the complainant’s device. The question of patentable invention is close, but the new testimony is not sufficient, in my view of the case as a whole, to disturb the opinion heretofore reached. Decree will be entered in favor of the complainant according to tbe former opinion.