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: 9
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
ARKELL SAFETY BAG CO. V. SAFEPACK MIILLS y
or an element in the machine, and that the court below was right in
dismissing the bill as to patent No. 790,023.
The decree of the District Court is affirmed, with costs to the ap-
MORTON, District Judge (dissenting). It is beyond dispute (1)
that nobody before Arkell had ever made any sort of crinkled paper
having a stated and predetermined amount of stretch, and that such
paper when first manufactured by him was a new product; (2) that
Arkell's machine, the patents on which are in question, was invented
by him to make such paper, and that nothing identical with that ma-
chine in construction, and nothing which would accomplish the same
result had previously been devised. These facts seem to me almost
conclusive on the issue of invention.
Moreover, there is no evidence, except the recitals in the patent to B.
Arkell, which I shall refer to later, that anybody before Arkell had
crinkled in any practical way finished heavy paper in a manner which
preserved the free "stretchability" essential to the uses here in ques-
tion. The only previous crinkling of heavy paper had been in connec-
tion with the original manufacture, and with the object of making a
thick elastic paper for carpet linings and packing-an essentially dif-
ferent article from Arkell's and not adapted to the same uses.
Remaking a finished product may well involve difficulties, which are
not present when the same result is obtained as part of the original
process of manufacture, and which cannot be solved simply by ref-
erence to that process. On the testimony of the defendant's witness
Allen and other witnesses, that was true in this instance; and it was
a very different thing to crinkle heavy paper after it had been finished,
from doing so by merely running it against a doctor blade adjusted to
the last roller on the paper-making machine, before the paper had been
The saturating bath, the squeeze roll, the lateral spreading, the
second wetting while adherent to the crinkling cylinder, the carrier
adjusted to retain the correct degree of crinkling, all as embodied in
the Arkell machine, constitute a set of unified operations which admit-
tedly had never before been brought together, some of the essential
steps in which, e. g, the separate squeeze roll, the rewetting, and the
adjustment of the carrier, were wholly new, and which achieved a new
and valuable result. This constituted patentable invention. Grinnell
Washing Mach. Co. v. E. E. Johnson Co., 247 U. S. 426, 38 Sup. Ct.
547, 62 L. Ed. 1196. To say, as my Brethren in effect do say, that
some of the elements being old, and those which are new being obvious
as connecting steps between those which were old, therefore the com-
bination or process as a whole lacked invention, seems to me not in
accord with the established law on the subject of invention.' Arkell's
1 See Cadillac Motor Car Co. v. Austin, 225 Fed. 983, 141 C. C. A. 105, for
discussion of a very similar question, and also, as to what constitutes inven-
tion, Proudfit Loose Leaf Co. et al. v. Kalamazoo Loose Leaf Binder Co., 230
Fed. 120, 144 C. C. A. 418; Frey et al. v. Marvel Auto Supply Co., 236 Fed.
916, 150 C. C. A. 178; Obmer Fare Register Co. v. Ohmer et al, 238 Fed. 182,
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/m1/31/: accessed January 20, 2018), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.