The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 272: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States and the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, June-August, 1921. Page: 7
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
ARKELL SAFETY BAG CO. V. SAFEPACK MILLS 7
ished paper was indirectly wet through the medium of a roll which
passed through the bath and carried the moisture to the paper, the roll
also operating to squeeze or press the moistened paper against the
crinkling roll just before it reached the doctor; that the fact that the
plaintiff passed its heavy finished paper directly through the bath be-
fore it reached the crinkling roll in both the process and apparatus pat-
ents, and in some of the claims provided for rewetting the paper at the
crinkling roll, did not disclose features involving invention. hut only
the appllcation of ob lous steps and ordinary mechanical skill as ap-
plied to methods and devices well understood; that the step or prac-
tice of laterally extending the paper sheet and the means employed
of a curved rod or roll for carrying it out were old in the paper-
making art, and their application in the plaintiff's process and machine
likewise did not involve invention. Letters patent No 16,430, to Blake,
January 20, 1857, and No. 37,790, to Schuyler, February 24, 1863
Means for adjusting the pressure roll (Bainbridge, No. 548,108;
Schuyler, No 37,790), for varying the pressure of the doctor (Lewer
& Edwards, No. 1,927), and for drying the paper (Bainbridge, Lysle,
and Lewer & Edwards) were regarded as of the same character
Having given due consideration to the arguments of counsel and the
proofs submitted, we are of the opinion that the conclusion reached by
the court below in dismissing the bill as to patents Nos. 790,021 and
790,022 was right, and for the reasons stated, without regard to the
alleged prior use of Allen
 Claims 16 and 33 of patent No. 790.023 remain to be considered.
These claims are for a process and a machine which involve the
stretching and reduction of the crinkles in the paper after leaving the
doctor and during its transfer to the drier, due to the movement of the
conveyor which travels at a greater speed than the paper is delivered
from the crinkling roll and the doctor. It will be seen that these are
broad claims, and that the step of reducing the stretch of the paper and
the means for accomplishing it are not specifically limited to reducing
the stretch a predetermined amount. The specification of the patent,
however, states that-
"the invention seeks to produce stretchable crinkled paper in which the ex-
tent of the crinkling is reliably regulated with reference to the particular work
which the crinkles are required to perform when the paper is in active use,"
and that 'the wheels 64 and 6j are removable, so that wheels of varying sizes
may be substituted for either or both. This enables the ratio of the diameter
of these wheels to be varied as desired, so as to regulate the amount of crinkle
in the paper as finally finished."
The plaintiff contends that, inasmuch as the specification discloses
that the invention resides in reducing the stretch in the crinkled paper
a predetermined amount, the claims should be read as limited in that
respect to the disclosure of the specification. If we regard them as
thus limited, the question presented is whether the claims involve inven-
tion or are infringed; it being conceded that the prior art does not dis-
close a process or device that anticipates them. In the court below it
was held that the claims did not involve invention, and, if they did,
were not infringed.
Here’s what’s next.
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 272: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States and the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, June-August, 1921., legislative document, 1921; Saint Paul, Minnesota. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38843/m1/29/: accessed July 25, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.