Court Opinion

ID: 9640649
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:11:00.130468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:31.298526
License: Public Domain

BOOTH, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
Though with grave doubt, I yet feel constrained to dissent from the able and exhaustive opinion of the majority of the court. My reasons may be stated as follows:
The Ferngren Patent.
Claim 22 of the Ferngren patent, No. 1,-677,436, was held invalid by the trial court because it was not supported by the original disclosure nor by a supplementary oath.
The majority opinion in this court holds that such oath was not necessary. In that I concur. But the majority opinion holds the claim invalid on the sole ground that the invention disclosed was not useful. From that I dissent.
The majority opinion finds in the deviee disclosed by claim 22 of the-Ferngren patent an infirmity not discovered by counsel nor witnesses for appellees.
The majority opinion states: “* * * There is a feature, revealed in the disclosure, which we think does establish the impracticability of this part of the apparatus. That feature is the seating of the bell upon the upwardly projecting rim of the tube. Such seating is clearly contemplated by the disclosure (see Figs. 7 and 14), and is necessary for the segregation of charge contemplated. This seating is by descent of the bell on the raised upper rim of the tube. In practical operation, this seating must be repeated rapidly as charges follow each other in a matter of seconds of time. Both the bell and the tube must be and are illustrated in the drawings as being, of refractory material to resist the intense heat of the constantly contacting molten glass. Such material necessarily must be some form of heat-resisting clay composition, and therefore rather frangible. It is inevitable that the frequent rapid descent of the bell upon the tube rim would readily cause chipping and breaking of either or both to the point where frequent replacements would be necessary. Replacement of either is no slight matter and would entail stoppage of the machine and drainage of the forehearth. Such a situation is not tolerable in commercial production, and the evidence is clear that no such apparatus has ever passed into construction and use. The claim, as explained by the disclosure upon which it is based, reveals an apparatus which is operable in the sense that it will actually function but which is not useful because of the above vital practical defect. * * * Lacking that usefulness required by the statute (TJSCA title 35, § 31), we think this claim invalid.”
, I am unable to agree with this reasoning or with the conclusion reached. There is a presumption of utility which attends the issuance of the patent. To overcome this presumption, proof is necessary. I find noi such proof in the testimony. Indeed the testimony shows that no device embodying the disclosure of the Ferngren patent has yet been built. Nor do I find anything in the inherent nature of the deviee disclosed or in its operation which demonstrates lack of utility.
The argument touching this matter contained in the majority opinion seems to me to be largely made up of assumptions based one upon another: First, that during the operation of the device there is necessarily a “seating of the bell upon the upwardly projecting rim of the tube”; second, that such seating is rapid and with force; third, that the bell and the tube rim are “rather frangible” ; fourth, that the seating of the bell upon the tube rim will cause breaking or chipping of the bell or tube rim to such extent that “frequent replacements would be necessary” ; fifth, that “such a situation is not tolerable in commercial production.” I omit discussion of this chain of assumptions in detail, but simply call attention to the fact that neither the claim (claim 22) of the patent nor the specifications require, as it seems to me, that the bell should of necessity come into contact with the tube rim.
On the contrary, the specifications expressly provide (page 1, line 105): “Operate ing within the reservoir and mounted shdingly through the top of the extension 4 is an a.ir bell 14 the lower end of which may fit the inner end of the nozzle 8 for the purpose of segregating a charge 15 of the glass for every operation of the bell, or if not in fitting contact with the end of nozzle 8, to partially seg*571regate a portion of the molten glass from the surrounding mass above said discharge nozzle.”
In view of this provision of the specifications, it seems to me that the argument for lack of usefulness contained in the majority-opinion loses its force.
I do not find in the majority opinion any holding on the question whether the Ferngren patent was infringed by the accused device of-defendant. I therefore omit discussion of this question and simply say that, in my opinion, there was such infringement.
The Two Poiler Patents.
Two closely related Peiler patents are also involved in the present suit: Poiler patent 1,405,936, sometimes referred to as the first patent, covers an “apparatus for feeding molten glass.” Infringement of claims 3, 2, 3, and 4 is alleged; Peiler patent 1,662,436, sometimes referred to as the second patent, covers an “apparatus for and method of feeding molten glass.” Infringement of apparatus claims 2, 4, 34, 21, 31, and 33, and of the method claims 24, 25, 26, 27, and 36 is alleged.
These two Peiler patents, broadly speaking, cover a process and different forms of apparatus for making use of three glass-controlling pressures (atmospheric, superatmospherie and subatmospherie), each of substantial and definite duration, for the purpose of feeding glass charges out of a submerged orillee and of shaping the charges while in suspension.
The Peiler patents axe in the art of suspended charge feeding.
The Method or Process Claims.
The majority opinion, in passing upon these various claims, holds claim 27 (for method) of patent 3,662,436 invalid as an attempt to patent a function. I cannot concur in this holding. Claim 27, which is set out in footnote 2 of the majority opinion, seems to mo to state clearly and concisely the steps of the method or process to be taken in order to attain the result sought.
' sit is frue that a patent is asked also eoveunf:? a machine which it is claimed will carry oinl the method or process. But, of course, the ash ing of a patent on the instrumentality does not necessarily preclude the obtaining of a patent on the method or process.
If the claim for method or process is simply a recital of the working of the specific instrumentality also sought to be patented, no patent can be obtained on the method or process. But, if the steps of the method or process can be carried out by instrumentalities other than the specific one sought also to he patented, or even by hand, then a patent or patents may issue both for the method or process and for the specific instrumentality.
In Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford, 214 U. S. 366, 382, 29 S. Ct. 652, 656, 53 L. Ed. 1034, the court said:
“The word ‘process’ is not used in the statute. The inventor of a new and useful art is distinctly entitled to the benefit of the statute as well as he who invents a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The word ‘process’ has been brought into the decisions because it is supposedly an equivalent form of expression, or included in the statutory designation of a now and useful art.
“What, then, is the statutory right to a patent for a ‘process’ when the term is properly considered? Curtis, in his work on the Law of Patents, says:
“ ‘A process may ho altogether new, whether the machinery by which it is carried on be new or old. A new process may be invented or discovered, which may require the use of a newly-invented machine. In such a case, if both the process and the machine were invented by the same person, he could take separate patents for them. A new process may be carried on by the use of an old machine in a modo in which it was never used before. * * * In such a case, the patent-ability of the process in no degree depends upon tho characteristic principle of tho machine, although machinery is essential to the process, and although a particular machine may be required.’ Curtis, Patents (4th Ed.) § 14, note.
“In Robinson on Patents, vol. 1, § 167, it is said:
“ ‘While an art cannot he practiced except by means of physical agents, through which tho force is brought in contact with or is directed toward its object, the existence of the art is not dependent on any of the special instruments employed. It is a legal, practical invention in itself. Its essence remains unchanged, whatever variation takes place in its instruments, as long as the acts of which it is composed are properly performed.’
“And Walker on Patents (4th Ed.) § 3, states that valid process patents may he granted for ‘operations which consist entirely of mechanical transactions, but which may be performed by hand or by any of several different mechanisms or machines.’
“It is undoubtedly true, and all the cases agree, that the mere function or effect of the *572•operation of a machine cannot be the subject-matter of a lawful patent. But it does not follow that a method of doing a thing, so clearly indicated that those skilled in the art can avail themselves of mechanism to carry it into operation, is not the subject-matter of a valid patent. The contrary has been declared in decisions of this court.”
The principles thus announced had been foreshadowed by the opinion of the court in Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U. S. 780, 24 L. Ed. 139, and these eases have been followed by the courts in numerous decisions, among them: Buffalo Porge Co. v. City of Buffalo (C. C. A.) 255 P. 83; Vapor Car Heating Co. v. Gold Car, etc., Co. (C. C. A.) 7 F.(2d) 284; Gulf Smokeless Coal Co. v. Sutton, Steele & Steele (C. C. A.) 35 F.(2d) 433; Nestle-Le Mur Co. v. Eugene, Ltd. (C. C. A.) 55 F.(2d) 854; Hartford-Empire Co. v. Nivison-Weiskopf Co. (C. C. A.) 58 F.(2d) 701.
It seems to me clear from the record in the ease at bar that the steps of the method or process stated in claim 27 can be carried out, not only by the specific instrumentalities described in the two Peiler patents, but also by the specific instrumentality of defendants set out in the Stuckey patent; and I can see no impossibility in the steps of the method or process being carried out by manual operations.
In my opinion, claim 27 is not invalid as an attempt to patent a function.
Claim 36 (for method) of patent 1,662,-436 is held by the majority opinion to have been anticipated by Howard 1,315,668 and by Howard application 180,795.
I cannot concur in this holding. Neither in the specifications of Howard 1,315,668 nor in Howard application 180,795 do I find the three-pressure method described or suggested, which is described and stressed in claim 36 of Peiler 1,662,436; nor is the structure described in Howard application 180,795 designed or intended to produce atmospheric pressure in the bell or tube for a substantial period of time. Subatmospheric and super-atmospheric pressure are intended to be produced within the bell or tube, and are in fact produced. It is doubtless true that in passing from superatmospherie or subatmospherie pressure, or vice versa, exact atmospheric pressure must be encountered; but this last-mentioned condition was not a part of the Howard system and was not intended so to be; and it was not produced and maintained for a definite period of time, as is the case in the, Peiler method.
This production and maintenance for a period of time of atmospheric pressure within the bell or tube is an important feature of the Peiler method.
The fact, if it be a fact, that the Howard structure could be made to produce a condition of atmospheric pressure within the bell or tube, is not enough to constitute anticipation of the Peiler method. Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co., 185 U. S. 403, 22 S. Ct. 698, 46 L. Ed. 968; Loew Filter Co. v. German-American Filter Co. (C. C. A.) 164 F. 855; Carson Inv. Co. v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co. (C. C. A.) 26 F.(2d) 651, 658; In re Ackenbach (Cust. & Pat. App.) 45 F.(2d) 437.
The Apparatus Claims.
The majority opinion holds claims 31 and 33 of patent 1,662,436 were anticipated by McCauley 1,281,083 and (British) 114,583.
I cannot concur in this holding for reasons similar to those set out in the discussion as to alleged anticipation by Howard of the process claims, and particularly that McCauley does not disclose the three-pressure system which Peiler uses, but instead discloses a two-pressure system.
Furthermore, there is a substantial difference between the McCauley devices and the Peiler devices in the way the flow of glass out of the feeder orifice is stopped.
McCauley makes use of a nozzle, the upper end of which is above the glass line. Peiler makes use of the air bell — lowering the same.
In McCauley the charge of glass passes out of the orifice by gravity without being shaped by compressed air or otherwise. In Peiler a shaping is accomplished by use of compressed air. There are other material differences.
Infringement.
In the majority opinion apparatus claims 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Peiler first patent (1,-405,936), and apparatus claims 2, 4, 14 and 21 of the Peiler second patent (1,662,436) are held valid and entitled to a “fairly liberal range of equivalents.” All of these claims''’ are, however, held not infringed by the/defendants’ apparatus. /
With this holding of noninfringement I cannot concur. To me it seems plain Aunt the defendants’ structure infringes the apparatus claims of both Peiler patents, and also the method claims of the Peiler second patent. The defendants’ apparatus is coneededly an embodiment of the .disclosure of the Stuckey patent 1,686,109.
*573Of course, the issuance of the Stuckeypatent raised no presumption that the device disclosed did not infringe the Peiler patents. Freeman v. Altvater, 66 F.(2d) 506 (C. C. A. 8), and cases cited.
The majority opinion, in making comparison of the defendants’ device with the disclosures of the Peiler patents, does not quote from the Stuckey specifications or claims, but, instead, makes use of the testimony of a witness who gave liis views of what the Stuckey patent disclosed.
I think the method is preferable of making use of the Stuckey specifications and claims.
The question of infringement is really one of law to be determined by a comparison of the disclosures of the Peiler patents with the disclosure of the Stuckey patent.
A comparison should be made between the specifications of the Peiler patents and the specifications of the Stuckey patent; a comparison should also be made between the claims of the Peiler patents and the claims of the Stuckey patent.
When such comparisons are made, it is, I think, not open to question that in both Peiler patents and in the Stuckey patent disclosure is made that the three pressures (atmospheric, superatmospherie, and subatmospherie) are all employed upon the area of glass within the air bell; also that in the Peiler feeders and in defendants’ feeder disclosed by the Stuckey patent atmospheric pressure is produced intermittently and for a definite and substantial period of time.
The fact, if it be a fact, that, since the filing of the complaint in the present suit, defendants have changed their feeder so as to dispense with the relief to atmosphere, does not avoid the infringement alleged in the bill. Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ontario Paper Co., 261 U. S. 45, 43 S. Ct. 322, 67 L. Ed. 523. In my opinion, the evidence fairly shows that atmospheric pressure following the subatmospheric is useful and necessary both in Peiler and in Stuckey.
Taking up for closer comparison the Peiler first patent, it is, 1 think, conceded that the defendants’ structure employs the pump and valve means for restoring atmospheric pressure. It is further shown by the record that the defendants’ device has a fore-hearth provided with a submerged orifice, and arranged directly above this is the air bell; and that the pump is connected with the air bell. The defendants’ construction also has valves for venting the atmosphere in the pipe that connects the pump cylinder to the air bell. The air hell in the defendants’ device is normally stationary, but is vertically adjustable ; and the length of the stroke of the piston is also subject to regulation. The defendants’ device also uses the vacuum to stop the flow of glass. All of this is in striking aceord with the device disclosed by the first Peiler patent.
In my judgment, the structures are substantially the same. Their mode of operation is substantially the same; and the result obtained is substantially the same.
At the trial it was stipulated as to the operation of defendants’ device (Tr. p. 81) : “ * *' * That in the operation of such feeders at such times, pressure above and be - low atmospheric were created in the air tube by the reciprocation of the air pump piston, and that on each stroke of the piston a communication to atmosphere was opened between the interior of the air tube and the ex - temal atmosphere, by the movements of the valves in the pump piston; * * * that the air tube was adjusted vertically to control (C-3) the weight of the charges delivered and has been occasionally lowered to the bottom of the container when feeding was stopped though defendant states that this has not been regular practice.”
With this stipulation of fact describing the defendants’ device and its operation is to be compared claim 4 of the first Peiler patent: “4. In an apparatus for separating molten glass into mold charges, the combination of a glass container having a submerged outlet, an air pump', a conduit to transmit air pressure from the pump to the surface of the glass, means for actuating the pump to produce alternate compression and vacuum, valves to open the conduit to the atmosphere and means for actuating a valve in timed relation with each pressure.”
It would seem to me from this comparison that there can be no escape from the charge of infringement.
As to infringement of the second Peiler patent, it seems to me that the defendants’ device infringes the apparatus claims of this second Peiler patent, and that this is shown by a comparison of claim 8 of the Stuckey patent, which correctly discloses the defendants’ device and its operation, with claim 14 of the Peiler second patent. Said claim 8 of the Stuckey patent reads: “8. In a device of the class described a well adapted to contain molten glass, an outlet port formed in the bottom of said well, a tubular member extending into said well in alignment with said port and communicating at its bottom *574•with the glass in the well, said tubular member adapted to contain a column of glass in equilibrium with the glass in said well, means for introducing a predetermined volume of air into said tubular memher above the glass thereof, means for opening said tubular member to atmosphere after said volume has been introduced, means for withdrawing from said tube a volume of air equal to that previously-introduced, means for opening- said tubular member to atmosphere after said volume has been withdrawn, means for regulating the quickness of the movements of the air introducing and withdrawing means . irrespective of the speed of operation of the device as a whole, without changing the volume of air moved at each operation, and means for regulating the volumes of air moved at each operation without changing the quickness of movements of the air-mpving means.”
■ Claim 14 of the second Peiler patent reads as follows: “14. Apparatus for segregating molten glass into freely suspended gathers of desired shape, including in combination a glass container having a discharge outlet, periodically operated means for applying different pneumatic pressures to the glass in the container for controlling the discharge of glass from the outlet, and for retracting part of the discharged glass into the outlet in regular cycles, means for adjusting said controlling means to vary the speed and the duration of the discharge and retraction, while maintaining the frequency of operation of the controlling means constant.”
In my judgment, the disclosure of claim 8 of the Stuckey patent covers completely the device -disclosed by claim 14 of the second Peiler patent; some additions are made in claim 8 of Stuckey.,. That the additions cannot prevent infringement is -well established.
Comparisons of other 'claims might be made with like result.
Of course, it is not allowable to read into the Peiler claims which are alleged to be infringed elements of other Peiler claims, thus limiting the former for the purpose of contending that the Stuckey device does not infringe. J. L. Owens Co. v. Twin City Separator Co., 168 P. 259 (C. C. A..8).
It seems to me that there is also infringement of the method claims of the Peiler second patent. In the application which resulted in the Stuckey patent there was presented a method claim reading as follows (Tr. p. 480) ': -“12. The method of obtaining' glass gatherings comprising providing a container having a discharge port therein, a stationary tube spaced above the discharge port, flowing molten glass into the container and tube, permitting the air in the tube to communicate with the atmosphere for a predetermined interval, for starting a flow of glass through the discharge port, compressing a predetermined amount of air- in the tube for assisting the flow. • of glass through the discharge port whereby to uniformly shape the gathering thereat, then releasing the compressed air in the tube, shearing the gathering depending from the discharge port, then exhausting a predetermined quantity of air from the tube whereby to draw the glass into the tube and to retard flow of glass from the discharge port, and finally providing communication between the interior of the tube and the atmosphere.”
This claim was rejected on reference to Peiler, and it is apparent that the process described is practically identical with the Peiler process described in the method claims. When later Stuckey filed a divisional application for a process patent, this was also rejected on Peiler. In re Stuckey (Oust. & Pat. App.) 50 F.(2d) 273.
I have not gone into a detailed discussion of the various apparatus claims of the two Peiler patents; but it seems to me that they are entitled to a broader construction than is given to them by the majority opinion; and it also seems to me that the method claims of the second Peiler patent are also entitled to a consideration which is not given them by the majority opinion.
Considering the whole range of feeders disclosed by the record, it seems clear to me that the feeders of Peiler and that of defendants are the only ones which employ the three glass-controlling pressures; are the only ones which have stationary air bells spaced above and directly over the orifice, with (a) compression to force glass out of the orifice; (b) vacuum to retard or stop the flow; and (c) a valve-controlled relief after vaeuum for the gravity flow.
Giving these various claims which I have considered a reasonable construction and a correspondingly reasonable range of equivalents, I am of the opinion that the device of the defendants as disclosed by the Stuckey patent infringes ,the claims of the second Peiler patent; also the claims of the first Peiler patent; and claim 22 of the Femgren patent, as above stated.
The differences in defendants’ device mentioned in the majority opinion as avoiding infringement of Peiler are, in my judgment, minor in character and well within the *575“fairly liberal range of equivalents” to 'which Peiler is entitled.
In my opinion, therefore, the decree of the trial court should be reversed.