154 F. 377 | 2d Cir. | 1907
It is evident from the opinion that the judge who heard the cause at circuit was induced to find patentable invention solely because of the testimony as to large sales. He says: “The testimony indicates that the improvements, though narrow, were quickly appreciated by the public and therefore any doubt which may exist * * * may fairly be resolved in favor of the patent.” The evidence showed for the year ending October 1, 1902, sales of 151,-218 receptacles; for year ending October 1, 1903, 252,989; for year ending October 1, 1904, 252,191; for year ending October 1, 1905, 379,783. This was accomplished by methods of advertising, circularizing and placing the device on the market, at a cost of several thousand dollars. As a result the device has practically supplanted older types. The difficulty with this testimony however is, that the “device” the witnesses are talking about, is the “Fielding device,” which contains all the features which are pointed out in both of the patents above referred to. The utmost that could be claimed for the testimony is that it shows an appreciation of the device as an entirety. It is valueless as evidence that the “improvement” set forth in the second patent which is the only one sued upon, required any more than the ordinary skill of the art, after the first patent had shown a device which did away with the necessity of cutting away the moulding, or of splicing the circuit wires or of leaving terminals and wires exposed, which were disadvantages inhering in the earlier type.
The district judge has very fully set forth the device of the first patent, the “improvement” of the second patent and the prior art; it is
The decree is affirmed with costs.
