National Latex Products Company v. Sun Rubber Company, Akron Presform Mold Company v. Sun Rubber Company

McALLISTER, Before ALLEN and MATHES, Judges, District Circuit Judge. Judge.

ALLEN, Circuit appeal judgment is an from a holding Pat- the District Court 2,629,134 ent No. “Method of Manufac- turing Vinyl Articles from Resins” 2,629,- Rekettye Martin and Patent No. “Apparatus for the Manufacture Articles,” Hollow Cast valid fringed. All four claims the Molitor are in suit. The is for a making of plastisols. hollow articles from patent The Martin is for designed automatically carry machine process. Appellee, out the Molitor The Barberton, Company, Sun Rubber Ohio, Rubber, hereinafter called Sun patents. Appellant, owns both National Ashland, Company, Latex Products Ohio, National, prac- hereinafter called process tices the described in Molitor. compete Sun Rubber National produced by manufacture of the articles process, such as balls toys. Co-appellant, The Akron Presform Company, Mold called Pres- hereinafter alleged co-infringer. form, joined as Individual officers National and Pres- joined form were below as co-defendants. complaint As to them the was dismissed appeal and no was taken. 2,629,134. Molitor Patent No. February 24, was issued application on filed June casting The is called rotational may briefly described follows: charged A hollow sectional mold is plastisol a measured amount of fluid vinyl mixed with resin and then closed. Blenko, Blenko, Hoopes, J. Walter compound The mold is rotated man- Pittsburgh, (Mc- Buell, Pa. & Leonard Coy, about two axes ner at same time Cleveland, TeGrotenhuis, Greene.& against is heated. The mixture is forced Oldham, Akron, Ohio, Ohio, Oldham & on the interior surface of the mold and as brief), appellants. temperature of the material rises gels Hamilton, Ely, Frye uniformly film mixture and a is R. & dis- Everett Ely, Hamilton, (Albert Akron, L. tributed the interior surface of Ohio Heating Akron, Ohio, brief), appellee. is mold. continued until on the temperature, arises fusion mixture reaches certain amendments to his original tempera- usually 350° around F. At this claims. The claims did state plasticizer liquid is fused with what con- ture should be used in structing resin. particles expressly of the the divided the mold nor describe cooling qualities. its The mold is then cooled and In final form each of gives tensile specifies the mixture Molitor’s four claims strength. opened The is mixture shall be rotated in a hollow sec- is tional porous”. article removed. mold whose finished inner surface is “non- typical, Claim which is advantages Many for the asserted printed margin.1 precise quantity of ma- method. Since original only terial less than the mold the volume of claims not did not mold, measured into accurate control describe the material of mold as non- weight porous product is secured. but also failed to teach that the formerly manufacture, any con- molds time of should be made of metal or suming day more, impervious other urges reduced to a material. National Shrinkage fraction of an hour. the addition of the term produced greatly “non-porous” article lowered. Dis- provi- Molitor violated the tearing eliminated; largely tortion sions of 35 U.S.C. 115. These §§ scrap part is minimized. sections read in follows: specification patents shall “§ District held both description of contain a written invention, valid and concluded National fringed manner the Molitor and that Pres- making using process it, infringed building form selling of and because of and clear, full, concise, such and exact accused Miller machine. Na- that, any person proc- tional terms as to enable skilled concedes if Molitor patentable, infringes. pertains, ess is which or National the art to It nearly patent con- contends that with which it most Molitor is in- (1) nected, same, valid because to make and use the Molitor failed in his application comply require- forth mode and shall set best with the contemplated (2) ments of of 35 the inventor car- U.S.C. 112 and„115, §§ rying anticipation of because his invention. out art (3) subjects the Molitor specification “The shall conclude produc- old material to an old treatment particularly more with one claims distinctly or presenting pat- no new result and claiming pointing entable invention. subject appli- which the matter regards patent as his cant invention. The Molitor had an arduous ****** through passage the Patent Office. It rejected prior patents four times on applicant 115. The shall make “§ including Rempel, 2,469,892, No. Johnson oath that he believes himself to be Kay, 500,298, British Patent No. No. original of and first inventor 1,998,897. machine, manufacture, process, or composition matter, improve- noncompliance of of assertion 115, thereof, with which he solicits 35 U.S.C. 112 ment §§ making revolving 4. of arti mold and the same time hollow at planes liquid plurality of cles and for a suf from a mixture of a rosin a gel plasticizer therefor, comprising period mixture to and a steps ficient to cause the depositing charge layer a uniform thickness over measured as a applying mold, mold, said mixture in a hollow inner surface of the sectional entire non-porous, the inner said moid to fuse the surface which further heat being cooling charge gelled layer, until less in than then the mold volume gelled layer mold, closing temperature volume of is be the mold point fusing thereof, opening maintaining it and prevent low the closed condition to escape removing the article therefrom. the mixture and air mold and cavity, heating from the mold the closed objection the viola as to what patent; shall state a * * be 115 must 112 and *.” tion Sections country a citizen. he is drawing patent The Molitor overruled. upon National Schriber-Schroth relies means 1 is No. cross-hatched. Company, Company v. Trust Cleveland contemplated mold material of the the metal, 8, 12, 83 47, 57, 573, 59 S.Ct. U.S. Patent rules under the 34, statutes L.Ed. require which holds signifies cross-hatching Office others description which a Fairly construed, metal metal. a safely may may be features know “which impervious not otherwise described is license manufactured without used or nonporous. “non the word To add Company may Permutit which not. porous” description metal would to a 60, 52, Corporation, 284 v. U.S. Graver Moreover, usually redundancy. be a 53, 55, also 76 L.Ed. 163.” S.Ct. expressly application Mar refers Works, Inc., v. relies Muncie Gear herein, patent, tin also involved Manufacturing Com- & Outboard Marine provides molds that the matrices or 759, 865, 86 L.Ed. pany, 315 62 S.Ct. U.S. usually copper metal, preferably made appli- which holds effect steel, copper plated or bronze enlarged by patent be cation cannot exteriorly inner surfaces coated an invention amendment to embrace dark, heat-absorbing coating. Thus filed, application when disclosed the specific application reference the Molitor rights public inter- have adverse necessary supplies disclosure as Stackers, & Loaders vened. Cf. Coats constructing the material to be used in Henderson, Cir., Inc., ap mold. The the plication disclosure of may supplemented refer patent. Application of ence to another Heritage, arguments Patent his before the 182 F.2d 37 CCPA touching Office the amendment pat to Martin 1109. The reference non- claims Molitor asserted specification ent consti in the Molitor porous his inven- mold was essential to supplement. phrase such a tuted Rempel and differentiated only “nonporous” minor ground. involved precise 2,469,892 No. Rempel on that change necessary complete to secure porous essential mold discloses protection by what, as the absorbing watery shown of constituent the drawing, applicant originally intend the not use does latex. Molitor Engineering to reserve to himself. that, ed as the latex. National contends Development Laboratories Radio Cor application specification v. did 523, poration America, Cir., of 2 nonporous 153 F.2d require not mold be to 526; Coop Company surface, General Electric v. belated inclusion its interior Company, Cir., Hewitt 249 er Electric 6 provision consti- of that claims 61, change In F. 64. Gear Works Muncie invention tutes material original case, supra, comply claims been If Molitor described. failed to containing limited patent and claims not with 35 U.S.C. 112 and 115 the §§ specifications Company of the al limitations is void. Permutit Corporation, supra. v. Graver Supreme lowed. The held that original application some later Molitor also failed a new to execute wholly failed amendments disclose the to connection with the oath in amendments finally invention and asserted. described beyond amended and if the claims went nonporous instant case char scope application National con clearly by acter of was shown prop tends the void for lack drawing original speci filed with the er attestation. Cf. Steward v. American and the reference to the fication Martin Company, 161, 168, 215 Lava U.S. 30 patent. equiv claims were amended 46, 139; Wagenhorst 54 L.Ed. S.Ct. v. original pointed claims. As Hydraulic alents Company, Cir., Steel 6 27 F. Engineer- Judge by 27. 2d Learned Hand in strongly Radio Development v. Molded Latex is relied on as in- Laboratories validating America, doc- supra, Corporation asserts Molitor. National Inc., 1950, Works, 13, Out- v. on June Latex Gear Molded de- trine Muncie Manufacturing Co., 3,000 heads, livered in board Canada Marine & dozen doll rotationally “certainly prevent supra, not does cast and made plastisol. go prior delivery further than no amendments was re- filing express make what would have Molitor’s 1950. date of June original garded equivalent not, however, was hereinafter * * shown, prior Interchemical 153 F.2d 526. to Sun Rubber’s commer- Corporation process April & Com- v. Sinclair Carroll cialization the Molitor 23, 1950, de- pany, prior Cir., neither was conception specification scription and claims thereof Molitor in the Spring one sufficient to “enable skilled of 1948. A written order dated April 25, art, specifications presented claims with the for these necessity of him, princi- doll before heads and and without this constitutes the pal concerning experiment inventive further nature, of an written itself evidence practice argues, invention of transaction. National on the patent.” Battery Rich- previously Co. basis of National its assertion over- Co., Cir., enlarged ruled herein ardson 63 F.2d that Molitor his patent by the amendments allowed to phrase “non-porous” did As the claims, his crucial date [35 enlarge claims, the contention 102(b)] year U.S.C. prior § than one “more required supplemental oath was application to the date upon the be The attack overruled. must patent” under this record is more than validity of Molitor on this score has year prior one presen- to the date merit. tation Molitor of the amended claims National next contends that containing express disclosure of anticipated Molitor is void because it is “non-porous” molds. The sale doll prior point art. National On Latex, heads Molded consummated on heavy in In order carries a burden. 13,1950, year prior June more than a ground prior validate a on the to the amendment Molitor claims knowledge proof use use the year prior but not more one than to the satisfactory. must clear Oral application patent. date of for the Molitor testimony unsupported patents ex holding previous- In accordance with our open suspicion. hibits 549, Am.Jur. ly specifica- made that the addition of the H. Section and cases cited. T. “non-porous” tion that the be molds was Symington Co. v. National Malleable only change invalidating a minor the Castings 383, 386, Co., 250 U.S. 39 S.Ct. patent, Stackers, Inc., Coats Loaders & 1045; Petersime Incubator L.Ed. Henderson, supra, we overrule National’s Bundy Co., Cir., Incubator Co. v. point. prior on contention As to the 580, 582. by National, use asserted date critical 102(b), 35 U.S.C. reads as follows: § is June application date Molitor’s patent. for person “A shall be entitled ato ** * patent unless— n molding Due to the fact that both slush “(b) patented the invention was Kaysam process and are involved in printed publica- in a described setting or question the factual of this foreign country or in this a or prior necessary use it is to discuss each public in use or on sale in this coun- briefly. of these methods year try, more than one to the by testimony, manu- As shown application date of the for objects toys facture small hollow and ” * * * States, the United in rubber, synthetic, dur- out natural or prior public by large A period use Molded in involved here de- Co., gree process Products employed Latex called hereinafter slush a called molding. process problems production, was the used This same the elimi- shrinkage, Rubber con- Sun time of Molitor’s nation of at the distortion and the ception tearing of his method. from of articles release on keenly the mold. Latex Molded desired to molding molding or Slush used curing time-consuming eliminate the casting objects aqueous dis- made of an process. As former licensee of a synthetic. persion rubber, or natural Kaysam patent pro- Sun had Rubber object process In made shrinkage tested the amount of pouring a cast into the material be objects fact that the mold. stuck agitating having aperture an Thereafter it license. canceled its revolving a of material it so that shell Prendergast, research director solidifies on inner surface Latex, April, 1947, vari- wrote Molded poured out material mold. excess asking companies for resins chemical ous through aperture of mold. molding. casting A slush suitable process in-and- is sometimes called the companies replied and of these number molding out method. In slush there samples. Molded Latex a few sent material rotation of the mold but searching product which would for a gelled by heat, and fused extracted by ma- the inefficiencies caused eliminate subjected from an the mold exten- had a solvent such terial that curing ready sive before it is Kaysam process after Under the latex. the market. they gelled and fused the articles had Latex was used Molded water, tank left a to be filled with had Kaysam process, dis- based hours, after of water some Kay 1,998,897. closure of the No. usually out to wash boiled water was an The mold aperture Latex used Molded had Prendergast latex”, impurities. “In through which excess material said, of materials “there are lot stage. poured In in the initial gelling agent is putrify also can molding Kaysam contrast to slush nasty in a rubber to leave casting process employed rotational * * *The article had to film. planes. the mold rotated in two Both the squeezed water later remove molding Kaysam process and used slush oven. on racks and cured was dried synthetic rubber, latex, a which con- shrinkage steps During these various tained After the desired of water. 30% occurred. liquid thickness had been obtained samples of resins received The few present content the latex was still compa- Prendergast chemical removed rubber film and had to be Prendergast satisfactory. nies were not object form. before the was in finished nothing came letters stated that great degree shrink- resulted in “ * * * said, since He that he wrote. age. molding slush Sun Rubber under seem- of these chemical materials neither shrinkage linearly 20% looking properties I was ed to have the horizontally. Molded Latex 40% ** right stopped for, thing there. operation shrinkage was almost 40% immediately.” dropped it We by in its final volume. If the article background against dis- this of dimen- It was form from ten-inch cast shrinks eight Molded Latex approximately of and Sun satisfaction to inches in sion Kaysam process salability and Rubber with same direction this lowers the began molding Also, that Molitor his was of the article. the article soft slush apt As admitted National: to work. and be tom in removal from the mold. 1948, Spring of he [Moli- “In appears testimony mold in an heated a oven to from tor] (i. Prendergast, about 100° 250° F. e. below Ficarra Gelles Mold- about temperature vinyl Rubber, fusion ed Latex and Molitor of that Sun put plastisol during period in the competitors plastisol), mold from both rotated hand. He found to 1950 with the were concerned given deposited tímate on March in a of the cost was plastisol had that making 9, 1949, subsequent layer. and after trial runs gelled heated He Mickey toys temperature ordered Mouse molds samples fusion to the using casting, July, 1949, he rotational Thereafter cooled them. mechanically production machine went into commercial on a mold mounted ending 23, during April period 1950. not satisfied was shaft but driven practice process plastisol to is reduced Since the distribution with (Corona successfully performed when Mr. asked He then in the mold. Rekettye Company Dovan Chemical arrange Tire Cord mechanism to 383, Corporation, 358, 48 S.Ct. two 276 U.S. rotate mold would so that the 380, 610) arrangement, shows that he 72 L.Ed. record this planes. With that prac- to satisfactory the Molitor reduced was distribution achieved a long rotation, tice before 1950. plastisol; after the fu- put oven he conception In contrast Molitor’s to sion, removed cooled it and then Spring 1948, con- product.” by National, positive tes- and written, ceded interrupted by a Molitor’s work was timony, reduc- as to much practice it during plant Rubber’s strike which closed Sun set 1949 above tion to Sep- early May 8, 1948, on ended forth, definite evidence there tember, After that time 1948. proceeded the re- Latex with Molded superiors in actively his Moreover, worked with late in 1948. search until conception to his Rubber to reduce vinyl Sun work on the resins Molded Latex’s refer- practice. with Molitor’s activities experimental in 1948 and 1949 was development set idea are of his ence Deering v. Winona Cf. successful. reports forth in written evidence, Works, 286, 302, 15 155 U.S. Harvester dating April, 1948. 118, 39 S.Ct. L.Ed. reported report April 20 Molitor Both Ficarra testified and Gelles satisfactory toys produced were Im- doll sent heads substance curing infra- under 40 to 50 minutes Toy 13, Corporation perial June Crown report lamps. of this At the side red rotationally signed 1950, order were on a noted, superior, Lile, “better than his vinyl employed resin. Fiearra’s cast and progress report upon resin K.” A heavily es- relied notebook was reflected October 1948. As dated sale constituted fact this tablish the reports progress of October in Molitor’s began prior Late in 1948 Ficarra use. or- 5 and December on Molitor’s experiments reference a number of toys Mickey ders Mouse a number molding plas- with latex and both to employed a method which made says Ficarra he While tisols. casting. rotational vinyl plastisol from the end worked with early part Moli to the At the end the strike of 1948 develop- spent of his time in tor authorized to work that ing continue he 90% castings, superiors project. plastisols for rotational order Molitor’s engineer testimony justify company’s development cannot oral ed the experi- modify Latex’s inadequate Molded which conclusion that motor use over a the ments constituted Molitor first used as to rotate so early planes re- conceived mold in two tory and secure method satisfac through practice a machine He mixture. duced completed distribution engineering depart in 1950 made for the ex- conferred with the building purpose. Ficarra press While was ma aware ment as to an automatic carry bulletins and out his method. the Goodrich worked chine which would engineers early resins, he stated some of that revised the machine gave February, 1949, company materials then commercial available and the building by Molded Latex not sat- used were an order for the No. raising isfactory. their Another order He said that viscosities machine. the es- high consistency they were of such shipped products, that rubber and ar- resin adapt did not vinyl themselves plastisol rotationally the rota- ticles cast processes tion August, subsidiary that his work con- to its Canadian conducting experi- sisted in series in evi- Invoices were introduced develop ments to covering Canada, formulation his dence but the sale own showing better sold, than that available on the not that the which articles rotationally employer market. At dipping forms, time his was were were manufacturing still products by latex cast. Other numerous invoices showed Kaysam process. purchases by No written rec- dur- Tillotson resin presented ord experiments satisfactory was period, this Tillotson at the time but Kay- using latex, practicing that Ficarra said he had. was also got He plant actually Kay testified that the sam on machine. Certain guess into production dipping forms, commercial “I “similar” claimed to be * * * part.” Canada, early .about 1950 those sold in were received testifying only evidence but the witness effect ad- Both Ficarra and Gelles alleged prior use with reference to problem of release mitted that the these that he know when stated did not by was solved solved Molitor the mold way dipping In what forms made. were La- nor Molded neither themselves dipping presented forms experiments. this Under in these tex sold Canada were “similar” to those Molitor cannot be denied record it T. explained. rule of was Under the first the first to conceive was Symington Malleable National H. Castings Co., supra, Co. v. practice. re- In this his idea to reduce alleged prior this ground spect than is on safer Rubber Sun clearly was not established. use was National, use claim of whose testimony. The principally on oral based 440,295. Patent No. Delacoste Italian only note- Ficarra’s evidence is written pat- Italian this the District Court begins book, con- Molitor’s after ent, presented to the not been which had ception process. Both the order con- Examiner, stressed was Patent delivery were doll heads and for the stituting anticipation Moli- the closest long Rubber Molitor and Sun after here. is reiterated tor. That contention practice. reduced method to have National filed A motion “would estimate” he Gelles stated patent invalid because declared Molitor development which result- work that the Judge Weick was denied of Delacoste Toy was Imperial order ed in the Crown ground 469), upon (D.C., F.Supp. January months of “within started clearly disclose patent did not February, was If this 1950.” cooling steps fusion and essential not con- would date of manufacture in Molitor. as shown year prior to public one use stitute a lengthy After a trial in which the Dis- pat- Molitor's the date June pictures trict Court viewed motion application. ent operation documentary No evidence and given, expert testimony considerable drawings presented sup models porting District made a detailed state- contention that these doll findings ment of his conclusions rotationally Apart cast. heads were from to and held that Delacoste did not fact that evidence does not re anticipate Molitor. The court noted taking place transactions one late history prac- any had been no there application (35 year Molitor’s date before applica- tice of and that an 102), testimony the oral taken U.S.C. § made to the United States Patent point lapse after a of seven Delacoste for a Office based open suspicion. years rejected form had the Italian subsequently Tillotson Prior Use. abandoned. -alleged amplified It is form of Dela- A second and Tillotson respects- Company, coste, a manufacturer that in Rubber amended so certain developed slush Molitor, as to clari- in the evidence strikingly to similar molding Kaysam method, no. but essen- and the patent added fied the Italian unique including the one theretofore process, had disclosed tial details the original which, with present- application combination of fusion. This or some old Office some also novel elements and Patent ed to January United States the January elements, produced a successful known 20, 1951 and allowed making hollow process walled thin articles, ex- plastic have such as Ital- found District Court here.” hibited clearly patent disclose ian not did step sup- The terms of essential and non-obvious temperature the Italian finding change port necessary ac- to Claim court. the trial complish reads as follows: transition gel District to fusion. As “1. The of manufactur- out, pointed were to the molds objects substantially hollow clos- enclosed heated so to transform as seams, deposit ed and without “gel”. Thereafter material to a hardening of a fluid meltable and object opened hollow was to be and the on the of a substance inside surface found, correctly removed. As the court closed, consisting rotatory mold, proc- practice the to to how details as depositing in the mold the desired required steps to or the mechanical ess accomplish synthetic resin, amount of natural or com- manufacture layer to obtain on the amold of con- given. object pleted hollow thickness, venient to which is added required hardening agent, by if causing court or- opinion trial In its gently in the mold to rotate embodying find- as to be dered considered every (any) direction in order ob- to ings of law and conclusions of fact layer resin tain a uniform on the Federal compliance 52 of the Rule mold, entire inside surface of the U.S.C., Procedure, Rules of Civil heating layer to transform the that consider- in substance found gel, opening resin into thereafter experimentation a search able withdrawing mold and ject ob- hollow treat- heat field of the wide disclosures produced.” thus range tem- ing, exposure, and time peratures clear definition and a supplied No other claim of Delacoste neces- composition of material type and necessity to information of fusion as of article sary the character to make temperature required. and as required accord would be tended specification also fails disclose anticipation of anof the status Delacoste says, speaking feature. It all-essential Molitor. mold, of the material inserted The court declared that “Delacoste did letting heated, “Thereafter complete make obvious not essential gently mold oscillate so that process” of his details Dela- deposits uniformly resin itself Italian “does not have coste required surface, operation the entire clarity and disclosure which gel prolonged until solidi- obvious to would be so one skilled * * * firm) (become fied practice him to art to enable as Dela- experi- method or without coste heating the mold “The can be Hence, the court held mentation”. brought by projection about anticipate does Delacoste Molitor. steam, immersion hot stated, “There is no doubt electrically, (warm) liquid, electro- experimentation, evidence research magnetically, by any other development by others field means.” plastisol resins such as and other engaged suggestion plastics those who have method manufacture; heating apparently gelling rubber latex this was relates to the step. Also, temperature indicated. “Geon Paste Resin 100-X-26” “Certainly,” expert, (May 1, 1947). testifies one Dela- “nothing coste at- teaches but steam at stating After Chem- that the Goodrich mospheric pressure, not and that would Poly- introducing Company ical vinyl its over, perhaps undoubtedly be consider- Resin in a new form Chloride ably under, degrees.” other advantages, many permit processing will words, gelling Delacoste teaches the bulletin declares: expert, Beal, fusion. National’s conced- you ed that fusion out and cannot leave development it “With this recent get product. the finished record possible disperse now res- to Geon supports Beal’s statement. plasticizer, in in and then with sim- processing prop- ple equipment and Foreign patents con be to treatment, produce er an ar- heat strictly pat strued more than domestic possessing ticle the same excellent ents. qualities of the resin mixed Geon “ * * * Supreme Court equipment equiva- on conventional said: ‘Patented inventions cannot resin-plasticizer lent ratios. superseded be mere introduc foreign publication tion of a of the kind, though prior date, unless for- method for of this “Success drawings description depends paste con mulating resin Geon repre plas- tain and a substantial exhibit or fact that solvation extremely patented improve sentation of the resin ticization ment, clear, full, temperature. such and exact re-aAs room slow at any person operating terms sult, as to enable skilled possible, while it is ap temperature, art science to which it resin to blend at room pertains, make, plasticizer construct plasticizer, with and serving practice carry same invention to the a vehicle practical they pri- extent be performing would its well as resin as if tempera- enabled to do mary the information Until function. ” prior patent.’ raised, derived plasticizer re- ture is Cir., Brock, Brown separate liquid v. ex- mains as a 723, 726; Seymour Osborne, Upon resin. ternal lubricant for the place, heating, plasticization takes 516, 555, Wall. 20 L.Ed. 33. liquid plasticizer is absorbed strictly Dis thus Construed resin, particles fuse and and the correctly that Delacoste held trict together mass. to form a solid knit representa a substantial not contain does full, such any plasticizer terms as to enable and exact clear “After the resin and practice may in the art blended, person skilled the mixture have been cast, molded, dipped. invention. coated or be per- equipment Conventional conclusion as Court’s The District forming may operations these anticipate Delacoste failure sup- provided used sufficient heat is patent must be sustained. type plied the resin. to fuse equipment paste Co., heat used to Rubber Inc. of Goodrich Bulletins important. infra- is not air and Hot bul- that three service is contended as well as have red other methods Company of the Goodrich Rubber letins However, found favor. is es- of Molitor. essential elements teach paste sential itself reach Ex- before Patent were not These strength 325-350° F. maximum aminer. product. finished Pertinent from the two extracts first these bulletins read as follows: process- cized on a mill other hot or “Application. ing equipment and then calendered “Vinyl paste can be formulations through by hot rolls or extruded type production same of the used paste system, heat hot die. In the commonly cal- products made necessary only is be must once but endering latex tech- solution plasticizer in- sufficient to drive the niques. to the resin. necessitates heat- ing temperatures the mass to molding pressure “Low accomplish 325° to 350° F. to possible pastes becomes and thus fluxing or fusion of the resin and proper- important perhaps most plasticizer.” molding ty. opens field of It is con- of issuance their date So far as available those who do have might cerned, bulletins of these two each heavy machinery. anticipation. Title qualify See as note each 102. We 35 U.S.C. § “Resin-plasticizer pastes can be availability two of the them stresses poured into and fused with molds molding. This pressure pastes for low application of heat without the important called “the circumstance is applied pressure need of on the stock property” which Good- this material resin-plasti- in the mold. With the introducing for rich in its bulletins paste, practically cizer there processes mold- as in well use in other as shrinkage in the mold ab- due ing, The two eventual sale. and for of a chemical reaction sence or general extremely speak in bulletins loss of volatiles.” molding process. While terms they dispersion resin 100-X-210” Paste Resin “Geon describe (Sept. 2, 1947). plasticizer the fusion of in the and applica- place upon the which takes two significant in “It is most F., about both bulletins tion of heat 350° easily dispersed plasti- resin is gelling process. This fail to describe and, equip- with a minimum of cizer for, step all-important hollow as to ment, may molded, cast or used gel articles, which creates coating dipping. This new inner form of the article on the skinlike thermoplastic paste-forming resin ignores also mold. It surface heavy necessity eliminates cooling process which one after fusion expensive mixing equipment and step expert in the Moli- declares to be the produce type prod- will the same toughness gives process which tor commonly by molding, ucts made reducing, pliability article calendering, coat- solution or latex distortion, large degree eliminating, ato ing. tearing scrap. Moreover, first bulletin states that plasticizer as a ve- serves “The resin-plasticizer pastes “can be carry particles and the resin hicle to poured into molds and fused”. One liquid separate or ex- as a remains successfully who skilled art under- heating, Upon lubricant. ternal blending paste of this took the place, plasticization with the takes plasticizer of resin constituents being liquid plasticizer absorbed poured it then into a mold not be would forms This ‘fusion’ the resin. following anticipating nor Mol- Molitor. homogeneous tough, ar 1 flexible conception disper- initial included itor’s mass. gell- plasticizer, resin in sion of processes where “In conventional fusing cooling mixture, it, vinyls calendered, extruded, mold. within the same it all necessary molded, use of heat is bulletin, during phases Goodrich The third issued least at two covering paste August, plasti- operation. Geon Resin The resin is first applicable gave bul- dicates the two Goodrich and is details fuller by appel- evi- bulletins clear heavily do not constitute the relied letin most (cid:127) prior publication use constituting anticipation. dence of lants (35 Sym- but, 102) required step U.S.C. only § fusion not appellant includes ington case, supra. brief, “al- main in its states stage” ‘gei’ (omitted in so describes upon The final Molitor is attack pour- bulletins), for it teaches its earlier ground patentable inven- of lack of ing plastisol mold and “into Appellant Moli- tion. contends that coating again leaving over a thin subject- merely process tor consists correctly appellant terior states, forming walls.” As ing an old to an old coating be- remains thin “The patentable. treatment and is not gelling place.” that takes cause of the ruling We bear mind the cooling of teaches The third bulletin also Supreme Court, Atlantic Great heads, articles, example, for doll’s molded Equip Supermarket & Pacific Tea v.Co. they stripped mold. from the before are Corp., 147, ment S.Ct. 127, U.S. ’ 162, question in L.Ed. that answer to The conclusive question of But here vention is a law. con contention that the third bulletin questions of fact exist which affect the anticipation is found stitutes of Molitor pat conclusion of law. We bound in are applicable 35 U.S. statute. Under findings ent trial cases fact of the 102, in not C. the third bulletin does § wrong. clearly court which are not Grav was validate published Molitor for it Mfg. er Prod Tank & v. Linde Air Co. year Moli within the before Co., ucts 336 U.S. 69 S.Ct. filing tor’s date. 672. L.Ed. Here the facts found accomplishment Neither the first two bulletins this Molitor do sug They process clearly anticipate. rec contain inchoate sustained gestions which of the ord. recommend the use pastes in Goodrich resin several arts and Molitor of the the result to whether As plastisols. foreshadow the wide use of clearly old, shown that it is process is They process, do teach Molitor’s single operation requiring the through a among which, things, other discloses possible, operator, one labor of blending, gelling, fusing, art, history time the first cooling the material in the same con-' strong hollow, pli- manufacture tainer, helping secure, Dis thus as the taken from which can articles able correctly found, trict Court indica distorted; being torn or without the mold steps tion of detailed continuous a largely thus, scrap eliminated. been has production method of never before dis operation has comparable time of The particular closed this art. day fifteen or more cut Ficarra, significant article the ex- Molded finished minutes. It is chemist, shape of the mold and re- testified act size Research Latex’s he, markings produces minute and detailed too, fair- resin. is a had the Geon cost has been mold. labor and informa- in greatly the bulletins inference only accounts This not reduced. were accessible to from Goodrich However,' commercial success the enormous he stated Ficarra. method; unsatisfactory. by Molitor addi- were achieved resins commercial tion, new use in terms Ficarra' it constitutes not show that does This record sticking -physical chemical action problem of articles solved resulting casting batch, in elimination he which he admitted molds curing formerly required. continuing difficulties, prior to the' of materials has de- Ficarra' The substitution Molitor. solution successful properties in articles veloped new in the art but the Goodrich- was skilled produced. sought Walker on Pat- to be did not teach Ficarra the method bulletin 66, page ents, Section Volume This also in- of Molitor. solution Mfg. Co., in which & 247 F.2d combi- in Molitor’s elements Various Appeals Vinyl United resin States Court of concededly old. nation were invention held that an had Second Circuit plastisol old. having relating adhesive sheets Resins” of “Geon used one backing with a non-fibrous Company. surface Chemical B. F. Goodrich coating pressure normally tacky and prior mold- plastisol deaeration thereto, 500,- sensitive adhesive united No. Patent British was old. ap- of elements old, of a casting consisted combination Rotational 803,799, new, none of which was valid Patent No. pearing in Voelke infringed. 1,998,897, Kelm Patent Kay Patent No. No. Rempel 2,262,143 Patent unanimously No. court refused Kay disclosed Patent 2,469,892. attack on made sustain the But these facts nonporous ground mold. components— a its conclusive. cellophane sheets, resin, rubber and rub adhesive, all ber resin were It held old. comprised not all elements Molitor n ofwhich produced new combination the use old. While quality and function and a new article vinyl known, use was its resin patentable. expert and was States An United new. this combination was Supreme (355 Court denied certiorari of rotat- the combination testified that 529). 952, 537, 78 2 U.S. S.Ct. multiplicity planes L.Ed.2d ing the mold in a To heating the same effect are Metal Foster simultaneously Products, Inc., against Jacoby-Bender, Inc. v. gel 1 plastisol it resin Cir., 869, 874; Bryan 255 F.2d Sid mold v. ner while surface mold Richardson, Inc., Cir., W. F.2d rotating step of 5 254 was was new. The 191, 193, 815, cooling denied temperature certiorari 358 U.S. of the material 22, 57, Georgia- 79 3 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. fusion the closed mold below the gelled Corporation Pacific point v. United States after the material Plywood Cir., Corporation, 2 258 F.2d inner (cid:127)on the surface 124, processes (the 884, certiorari denied 358 79 older U.S. fused new. In was 124, 3 Kay Patent, instance), S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 112. This case the mold was held patent relating that Claim 1 of ply opened before conclud- was panelling, con- wood Molitor which had in ed. In been held opened. Court, valid District before the mold was valid and cluded infringed steps and declared the essential were com- that commercial Molitor important is an success pleted the mold. factor in de within termining invention in a doubtful case. all established law may be combination recognize of a elements that commer We Company New old, Rubber Diamond alone the final cial success is not test Rubber Com Tire v. Consolidated York Atlantic Great & Pacific invention. 444, 428, 442, 31 S.Ct. pany, 220 U.S. Supermarket Equipment v. Tea Co. and, 527, if elements 153, L.Ed. supra, 55 Corp., 340 U.S. 71 S.Ct. re coacting produce useful new and However, relevant consideration patentable. sult, combination question of invention close. when the Stackers, Hen Inc. v. & Loaders Stackers, Coats & Inc. v. Hen Loaders Coats 921; 915, Cir., Col derson, 233 F.2d 6 derson, supra, 233 F.2d 921. But ma Company Prod gate-Palmolive v. Carter jority thinks District 862, 855, ucts, Cir., Inc., 230 F.2d 4 affirmed validi must be as to the Judge Parker. opinion cogent Chief ty Molitor for reasons more striking commercial support than that important cases Later by practice typical attained the Moli A decision success .same doctrine. judgment 723, patent. Cir., We think Brock, 4 240 F.2d tor Brown v. mainly; striking Moli affirmed because Technical instance is should A product, present- Mining new obtained a has Corporation tor Tape v. Minnesota 240 highly Engineering Corporation novel in the Trabon features useful v. art, Dirkes, Cir., 27; 24, which tribute of have received the 6 136 Na F.2d industry being extensively adopt- George Company tional Lock Washer v. Inc., Cir., ed. K. Company, Garrett 3 98 F. Hughes 646; 643, Company 2d v. Tool used fact Cir., Supply Company, International 10 materials effective more different 490; 47 F.2d Cold Com Metal Process synthetic, does rubber, natural or than pany Republic v. Steel Corporation, novelty in itself constitute not of Cir., 828, 837, 838, 233 F.2d certiorari de However, substitution known, vention. 128, nied 352 U.S. 77 S.Ct. 1 L.Ed. com material, also a different 86, rehearing 2d denied U.S. may elements other bination 323,1 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 245. develops new invention if it amount Also, National in admits article. properties uses fringement process, of the Molitor Patents, Section Volume Walker in all it declares used Nuway Florence-Mayo 79; Com 66, page respects. 780; substantial This is evidence Hardy, Cir., pany Diamond Rubber invention. Co. Appliance Safety Protecto Yablick v. Tire York v. Consolidated Rubber New Cir., Corporation, 21 F.2d 885. 3 444, 441, Co., 428, 220 U.S. 31 S.Ct. known materials cases each of these 527; 55 Rubber General Tire & L.Ed. in a materials other substituted Cir., Corporation, Fisk Co. v. Rubber 6 patentability process and combination 740, 747; F.2d Manufactur 104 France was sustained. ing Company Jefferson Electric Com v. long-established tests of The pany, 605, Cir., 6 When 106 F.2d 608. high degree. Com here exist experts invention prolonged fail to the produce efforts working prob to solve the petitors were remedy desired, the dis in Prior Molitor. achieved improvement lem covery of the needed accomplish the failed to vention had justify conclu commercial success years few and within a Molitor result of although that there sion is invention great re extent process a has to Hughes simple. Compa device is Tool prior practices art. placed ny Supply Company, v. International has it National in its brief that states technological supra. Here there was a latex of rubber use discontinued the that those block and fact skilled in exclusively. vinyl plastisol employs and Prendergast is the art had failed eliminate dis Arrow has states cogent evidence of invention. Cold molding all slush but continued Company Republic 20% Metal v. Steel Process asserted, and de rubber. not with It page supra, Corporation, 233 F.2d at nied, have been numerous machines Engineering 838; Corporation Trabon precise practice by Presform to sold page supra, Dirkes, 136 v. F.2d at significant techni It that a method. history process Molitor molding dictionary slush now defines cal instance of the dra “immediate and plastisol rather use of in terms described in Coats Load matic” success Encyclo rubber. Plastics than pedia Modern Stackers, supra, Henderson, Inc. & v. ers (1959). proof patenta and held constitute operative complete process bility. The strongest indicia is one This given patent for the Plainly, manufac- when of invention. burden in and the on the time first fringer turing concerns, practicing the art and novelty to show that not competing other in mar- with each Slug Rejectors, patentable. National extensively replace

ket, method for one Manufacturing Corpora v. A. T. B. Inc. another, of invention. is evidence tion, Cir., F.2d Stackers, Inc. v. Hen- Loaders & Coats derson, supra; process Borg-Warner creates a new While v. Goodwin tearing 273; Cir., which the and unusual result Corporation, produce wholly manner removal new It articles on distortion result. long they are is a new which fills felt function from the is minimized v. simple, Products, need. Foster Jacoby-Bender, supra. economical Metal Inc. fabricated outstanding resulting It is a new novel Brock, success, unobvious result. Brown commercial we consider v. supra. competitors prob- solve combination has contribut- failure something rapid re- ed Molitor and the It lem solved before. knowledge”. placement by processes added “to earlier sum of useful Molitor of strong required long industry experimentation is also evidence ordinary more than mechanical skill invention. produce it. majority con judgment As to Molitor presents case the instant siders process of the District Court is affirmed. “exceeds whole which the parts”, Pa Atlantic & Great sum of its Rekettye Martin Patent Equipment Supermarket Tea Co. cific 2,629,131. No. supra Corp., ISO]. 71 S.Ct. U.S. [340 charged action, In this in which combination is a true fringement of Martin et machine al. every co-acts element 2,629,131, built No. for the ex- upon the every and acts other element carrying press purpose Moli- processed produce final invalidity process, defense was tor up gelling spreads film result. noninfringement. The District Court evenly mold, inner on the surface judgment on both issues for entered casting, rotational distributed patentee. the accomplishes physical a fusion the by machine was Martin and built change which in material the the Rekettye and 1950 the 1949 merges plasticizer liquid into and enters gave Molitor, said he structions of who particles the resin in the the fine of with specifications would them of what he the casting material at batch. The time, require temperature, way in the of cooling point is and weak but the soft the all other features. brings step condition the material to a 18, 31, 32 and are in is- Claims Nos. toughness, strength pliability of printed are in the Claims 18 and 31 sue. to removed which allows the article be margin.1 breaking tearing, mold without from the permanent finished a of deformation. machine or In Martin series the product operation object project- an of on crank arms the molds is carried conveyor new ing combined in which which old elements a a vertical chain from casting A arti on the arm for the movable matrix 1. “18. machine hollow means comprising matrix, conveyor, section, a the the in a means to rotate matrix on cles angularly disposed conveyor, rotatable on the means axis with a shaft arm about operation during arm, respect drive the shaft the of to the chamber to axis a shaft, conveyor, through moved, a crank arm on arm is the which the said having heating a matrix rotatable on end of the means set the chamber adapted arm, said matrix to hold a which has been over crank material distributed liquid charge casting material, and in entire surface of matrix ter-engaging driving unequal compound cooling thereof, means of rotation a sta- pitch through carrying rotate matrix to the arm distribute charge casting tempera- material is moved reduce the over matrix matrix, inner of the matrix.” and means surface ture to hold during Apparatus together for the “31. manufacture matrix sections the rota- passing hollow articles from elastomeric material roleaseable tion thereof but after support, comprising cooling permit a movable an arm station to the mold to support, opened carried means to rotate the removal of be the finished axis, charge a arm about its own sectional and the admission of a new article arm, matrix on the one closed section introduced therein being respect with matrix movable the matrix is restrained from while rota- guiding matrix, other section of the tion.” heating carried question. the molds to oven the machine (cid:127)carries Hemphill Company Company, 4 cooling ro- -and The molds are Davis station. Cir., Gyp- planes 573; dif- tated in driven at United F.2d States two Expanded speeds Company even sum ferent to secure v. Consolidated order Companies, Cir., the Metal After (cid:127)distribution of the material. through pass heating cool- molds ing steps rotation they from are withheld therefore, deciding question, In ¡by driving mecha- disconnection only we consider machine the Martin auto- nism and the finished articles performs and not the fact that it what matically Man- molds. removed from majority held above operation employed fresh ual when process. to be an inventive (cid:127)charge top deposited at the of material is provides Claim 18 rotational cast- conveyor’s journey. refilled (cid:127)of the ing in in dif- which the mold is rotated op- repeat molds then their continuous ferent axes dif- provides for a also eration. speeds ferential different machine, which National The Miller. coverage axes assure uniform process, practices the Molitor -concedes inner surface of the mold. conveyor, turn- uses instead a chain already These features dis- been carrying plane fable in a horizontal Rempel 2,469,892. closed in Patent No. n crank arms, supports a each of which casting, also addition to rotational .spider upon plurality molds which a specified Kay 1,998,897, Patent No. spider car- 'is Rotation mounted. satisfactory Rempel states that results through successively the molds mes rotating have attained heating cooling then chambers per “one revolution one minute about them, operator, opens removes “tothe who quarter axis and one and revolutions one n thefinished articles and recharges the axis, ,per minute about other oth- Miller ma- molds with material. particular con- erwise accordance machine chine differs the Martin requirements.” ditions Sun Rubber spiders and the the use the turntable driving means of un- .concedes conveyor Another instead chain. equal pitch is not new. n differenceis that in Miller an automatic ¡brake upright and ar- the holds molds 18, prior in no art As Claim heating and rotation their after rests conveyor submitted here belt been has a cooling ¡similar a process. Martin had achieved provided plurality a molds con with of disconnecting by the driv- result during stantly rotated motion of the con ing rotates molds mechanism which veyor planes, on axes in disclos two belt -during period. close this At the of ing speeds differential in on of rotation a opened operation, are Miller the molds axes, effecting the two distribution even by op- manually an and locked with bolts casting batch on the interior sur of using torque an electric wrench erator conveyor is face the mold while the of purpose. exception With for this Although moving. old, the elements are charge deposit material in the of of spec machine has attained the entirely by operator, Martin is mold speed efficiency in of tacular results ¡automatic. in art production attained mass this The District found machine. this validity Martin, As to the of in effect designed accused machine was that confronted the rule announced -weare purpose secure the same Company this in Mur in court Nestle-Le in the same is art. This claim results Eugene, Limited, 854, Cir., 6 55 -v. valid as a combination. held that a machine not (cid:127)which comprise 31, .meeting patentability appli also 32 33 old the tests Claims of conveyor patents invalid, belt is machine is not elements. old. cable to n withstanding (cid:127) 2,014,468, clearly Clayton, patentable that discloses “con- No. a (cid:127) being trackway in ¡process has been is therein discovered and tinuous which ordinary plurality progressively more than mechanical are of molds charg- through produce continuously equivalent operated skill to cooling, operation. ing, closing, dis- Martin heating, The Jensen Patent making eggs, charging periods.” of Killian’s One Easter chocolate heavily provide 2,127,827) objects appellants, so (No. is relied on here through Assuming conveying a was before forms “means Patent Office. 1,812,242, analogous, path.” Jensen, we con- is do not certain No. art intermittently requires sider in uni- that specifies Jensen reversal an endless moving formly view contains fact which that examiner mold belt .of having making that, before received in his decision. him after molds automatically liquid mass, are rotated The Martin device has which planes. con- The feature of two obtained using results hereinbefore described cycles operating a con- struction through ordinary involves more than the skill casting tinuous rotational the art. The fact that old com elements steps is old. various produce bine to result inventive new together 31-33, read Claims when Manufacturing is not decisive. Williams specifications, disclose Company Machinery United Cor v. Shoe closing mounting, opening 364, poration, 367, 62 S.Ct. U.S. stat- In addition to mold are automatic. 1537; Diamond Rubber L.Ed. ing purpose the inven- this Co. of York Consolidated Rubber New specification tion, declares further Co., 428, 443, Tire 220 U.S. S.Ct. described “the machine shown 55 L.Ed. 527. operation in its is automatic herein * (cid:127)x- * “it will thus It further states aggregation The vice machine seen that automatic urged by appellants not does exist this multiplicity perfected particular dis combination. While it continuously on a carried matrices accomplish closes successive means of through stages conveyor moving all the ing steps, certain this fa in itself casting all necessary internal for the validity. tal to The elements the com The feature sorts hollow articles.” simultaneously. 1 bination need not act arresting molds hold- the rotation (Deller’s Walker on Patents Sec. during position upright them Judge Edition). pointed As stripped article time Simons, speaking in Buf recharged an en- mold and falo-Springfield Iron Co. Roller v. Galion feature, tirely combination. new Mfg. Cir., Co., 6 Works 215 F.2d Miller idea followed same 687, Supreme of of decision Court automatic brake. use his of in Atlantic & United States the Great held Court The District Equip Supermarket Pacific Tea Co. v. an automatic provided 147, 127, machine Corp., Martin ment 340 71 U.S. S.Ct. whereby from the means continuous 162, not does “that com L.Ed. hold of material pouring the entire amount of pat binations of old elements are never molds until the extraction of closed assemblage into new an entable.” The is opera completed article no manual entirety in which the eoact to elements pointed required. The single unitary produce a The result. suc not been accom had theretofore this that operations in cessive carried out any patent in earlier disclosed plished or upon Martin machine act affect publication held this consti produce same material a finished finding This was a invention. tuted coop which all elements article have 267, Gibbs, fact, Faulkner v. U.S. of erated to create. clearly L.Ed. not S.Ct. prior patents judgment pre art of While District Court as erroneous. important Martin, validity the Martin of to the of features it sented affirmed. have taken considerable modifica- would Infringement Patents, Martin. Molitor and 160. The successive §§ .of steps compound rotation, differ- held that Court District speeds, gelling, cooling, ential fusion and in both National and Presform fringed carried, in out Miller. The District process patent and the Molitor found, effect, Court Miller ob- patent. National machine Martin substantially tains the same results infringement if Molitor concedes question Martin. The critical whether in the brief valid. states Presform way the result is achieved the same contributory in not that it does concede by as it is achieved Martin. 40 Ameri- fringement Molitor, not does “but Jurisprudence, can § press District issue here.” The law, Under if the established “designed the Court Presform found that pioneer patent, Martin were a the court cooperation with Miller Whit machine apply would a liberal construction and tington purpose manufactur for the equivalent tend to hold the Miller devices and, ing articles”, the National Latex those of to prudence, Martin. 40 American Juris- contributory hence, “must be held as a p. But, as the Dis- § by infringer”. finding is sustained recognized, trict Court pioneer patent. it is the manufacturing National concedes that record. art was crowded. products Mil on the its principal elements Martin process. ler As machine the Molitor old and found in various workable Presform, adver the record contains patents in same claim art. Martin’s put out tisements the Miller machine validity upon rests the fact it is advantages extolling Presform, consisting true combination old ele- practicing the machine for every in which ments element coacts with in substance that Molitor. produce the others new and useful Age, February, 1956, Miller

In Rubber beyond result ordinary skill describing published these ma an article art. calling chines, us manufacturers plasti rubber to switch to art Also, Miller lacks certain auto and, effect, sols use the Molitor helpful pro matic features so in efficient Also, process. appellants, proceed pat duction and stressed in the Martin ings application in connection specification ent. The Martin au calls supersedeas bond, filed March operation purpose tomatic an essential 12, 1958, admitted machines built that 47 completely of the invention. The auto Miller, Presform, the President of operation up matic of Martin was relied designed by identical with those Whit on the Patent Examiner and tington designed for rotational all ruling validity. District his casting vinyl resins, had been sold majority record, Under competitors judg Sun Rubber. The although that, court thinks the Martin infringed appellants ment that both the patent valid, we must construe Patent must be sustained. 35 strictly according that, to its terms and 271(b) (c). U.S.C. § construed, may so substantially while Miller secure Martin, same results as ques The “more difficult by it secures them means in not all re rightly by tion” as stated District the spects equivalents the substantial of presented infringement Court is toas completely Martin. final The result of of Martin the accused Miller machine. operation automatic Miller not does The machines do not resemble each other op achieve. two machines do not Necessarily in form. a horizontal turn substantially way. in erate same carry with a series of table crank-arms ing spiders upon holding compels molds are mount This fact a closely conveyor will not infringe. ed resemble a machine does accused carrying molds in judgment belt a verticle move Court of District affirm- validity ment. This circumstance is not deter patent as to ed infringement Jurisprudence minative. American appellants and its both pa- validity poly- Martin with his use new Goodrich of as to the infringement by vinyl material, “Geon Paste Resin tent reversed as to but that, patent. appellant This was the Martin 100X210.” substance either of F., when heated 325° and between 350° District is remanded The case resulted in the fusion the resin of proceedings in accord- Court further plasticizer. prior This differed opinion. with this ance molding,” “slush since no there was remaining. liquid According waste Judge (dis- Company: McALLISTER, the Bulletin of Circuit Allen, the Goodrich Judge senting). plasticizer usual in her serves as vehicle to “The carry a searching il- particles, fashion, resin and remains able luminating with the judge, great separate patent liquid or lubri- mind a a external of present- Upon heating, plasticization fully cant. the facts takes so stated case, being complex liquid plasticizer place, issues with the ed the expressed the conclusions absorbed This ‘fusion’ a dissent to resin. homogeneous additional, tough, requires or counter forms a and flexible her no controversy. charge then, Obviously, mass.” statement of the material, mold, each of the Goodrich to be views is difference our would be less than the volume of of area field well-tilled of found sought mold, it were to make a unless teeming with hundreds patent law that is article, solid one— rather a than hollow conflicting embodying adjudications of opinions: while, molding,” “slush more with of patent invalid a when plastic poured be in each substance would invention; a and of when want of fact, mold—in each mold would filled con- for a mere is invalid because liquid —since would be a residue there aggrega- which, junction parts, old remaining plastic after substance tion, perform produce dif- or no new against gelled inner surface operation than ferent function the mold. Yet the “slush method of produced performed or theretofore molding” molding prac- was akin to the them. by Molitor, ticed resin. with the Goodrich the Molitor It seems me that Admit- Molitor, himself, invention. that, is invalid tedly, want of testified working his combination vinyl the elements of he on “slush” fall was and castings, resin use were old: when received from he first pri- plastisol deaeration plastisol; Company, poly- new Goodrich casting; molding; use rotational vinyl material, or to “Geon Resin Paste argued by non-porous a mold. was 100X210.” Molitor “I testified: appellee de- 100X210, involved use particularly satisfied with charge liquid positing stayed measured that.” conclu- I with plastisol in a gave mixture of resin thereupon seems clear that he sion charge mold less molding, “stayed hollow with a closed up with” the slush mold; than volume of the volume fused, material that Goodrich instead rotating the leaving combination of liquid residue. planes and si- multiplicity mold multaneously pat- seem It would that the Delacoste gell heating the material to taught pro- what Molitor ent mold, against inner surface of certainly, least, fesses at new; rotating, teach— while material, use of the Goodrich “Geon cooling step the tem- and that Resin 100X210.” The District Paste in a closed mold perature the material missing step said that one in Dela- point after the material fusion the below produce coste, and essential to the arti- gelled inner surface of been the had on recognition mold, fused, temperature of cle, new. is the the was the change accomplish the transition significant to of me; appears most that To fusion; gel from to contemporaneous material the success was Molitor’s 246 says Ely: experimenta- “Mr. No. Our claim

that, without considerable polyvinyl the resin and a in mixture disclosures of for search treating, plasticizer.” ex- time field heat of wide range to- temperatures, of posure, and of Goodrich 1947 Bulletins the clearly define gether to the with failure Company how as to and their instructions material types composition of 100X210,”' the to use “Geon Paste Resin the of article required make character by the to together elements used the old effec- intended, without Delacoste leaves Molitor, success Molitor’s account for ar- is also anticipation. It force tive but, my opinion, in his con- not raise do cooling Great, the tem- gued step of that the ception the level invention. of to closed in a the perature of Supermar- Atlantic Pacific Co. & v. Tea the material point after fusion below'the Equipment Corp., ket 340 71 U.S. fused, been' Was new. 127, L.Ed. S.Ct. foregoing overlook seems All of the al., patent Martin, for As to et the of of Bulletin fact that the Goodrich the apparatus the for the manufacture 2, 1947, to accom- September stated articles, my hollow it is cast view fusing material, the “Geon plish the the under this court Gen decisions of necessary 100X210,” ,was Co., Paste Resin Corp. eral Motors v. Estate Stove temperatures of 325° mass to heat the Cir., Motors and General and, also, instruc- F.; 350° Corp. Cir., Co., F. Estate Stove supplier the the furnished tions following Supreme 2d Court the best it to secure resin, use told how to Co. Great & Pacific Tea Atlantic products. fused conjunc results case, supra, it a mere embodies which, aggregation, parts tion perform produce old expert appellee’s Sessions, C. Robert different new asked, witness, cross-examina- operation perform than that theretofore ,gave following question, and tion, the produced ed or them. indicated: answer Molitor and Martin combined ac- “Q. the instructions How about complish the manufacture of excellent practicing person Delacoste single products operation in a without get supplier of from would damaged scrap, material or and reduced it is admit- I understand plastisol? operation day the time of fif- plastisol plaintiff here ted minutes, teen with immense reduction of Now, why the man wouldn’t old. years labor cost. preme In the before the Su- the instruction the art use skilled given decision At- providing Great person case, & Pacific Tea lantic Co. probably deter- would He A. plastisol? mination case pro- instant use instructions could probably unanimous, would to sustain person.” vided judgment of the District Court. types and define the failure to As to light decision, I the' am of required to make composition material patents opinion that are invalid. intended, coun- article character of interrogated by the appellee was sel court, Rehearing On Petition question trial, during material: composition Judge. , ALLEN, any Circuit You claim don’t “The Court: novelty this mixture ? rehearing petition for addressed A making Ely: say this, I “Mr. 2,629,134 No. only Molitor to'the important step is mix herein. filed attacks the process. judgment of this Court af- opinion holding firming District Court's In one Court: “The majority is valid. ? claims

247 not found to be The Molitor adduced was the matters "Court consider rehearing. hearing granting in trial ground valid on extensive a to for testimony only which included not vigorous A is made attack experts, District but also afforded the controversy. It history this (cid:127)Court’s moving opportunity Court the to view in made is said various statements that pictures operation. The claims support rec- opinion in the have no describe a use of combination. The ob- Many now ord. of the statements com- old element does not a invalidate jected wit- appellants’ made to were This bination if the combination is new. nesses; instance, appellants’ wit- highly testimony record contains the of a had Latex nesses that Molded testified qualified expert that use of shrinkage linearly about a of 20% mold, closed mold in the rotation in that Ficarra said volume. 50% latex multiplicity planes, a the simul- get you would almost 40% heating gel it taneous mixture shrinkage. During ex- Ficarra’s volume against inner mold surface of the periments plastisols, Latex Molded cooling new, temperature is manufacturing products from latex. was point below the in fusion of the material His also showed work on slush notebook inmold this is new. closed combination molding. certainly The new. result that Court It is asserted Appellants petition in their rehear- n authority relevant events describe the ing repeatedly overlook the fact that law that in It is the case. established adopted finding Court and conclusion findings of cannot the District Court District Court on this all-im- clearly unless aside erroneous. be set portant point, and make statements of 52(a), Pro- Federal Rules of Civil Rule highly fact which are inaccurate because cedure, 28 U.S.C. testimony, purported statements being opinion does mean that from our are not distorted affirming judgment Appeals of context taken out and condensed with- in Court of recognizing opinion speak- cannot draw infer that of the District Court ing undisputed appellants facts. Thus ences from written combination. findings cooling approved say stated this Court This Court has n affirmedthe judgment What the the District mold new. Court said was together cooling exception mold, questioned in a closed one not Court with combination, partly elements of the facts were documen with other here. The Appellants say tary presented facts was new. the evidential effect fusing gelling, opinion were in the main not Molitor admitted cooling dis dispute puted. the mixture within The to the infer the same art from old in 1949. drawn facts. Under were testi- ences to be The given Appeals mony referred Decem- Courts such circumstances ber, 1957, question in answer to draw own infer to a their authorized regularly evidence. v. Ful tell “the ac- Stubbs asked cepted (cid:127)ences from way slushmolding.” Atlanta, Cir., 5 146 Bank of normal ton Nat. 864, evidently 558, denied certiorari 325 U.S. answer to slush F.2d related 1984; molding 89 after much Iravani L.Ed. S.Ct. Mottaghi Barkey Importing Co., dustry plas- switched rubber process. Cir., certiorari aware the Molitor denied and was tic 1402,1 Arrow at S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 1538. occurred switch U.S. not answer did relate slush mold- be unfortunate if would 1949 and not Appeals could summarize material -of fully rehearing below, says: par- petition “The discussed incidents where, meager early here, ticularly opinion states that the factual commercial n satisfactory’ points given ‘not certain ”. explanation What resins ¡in actually says Ficarra, opinion counsel on both sides. this court Molitor, appellant’s com- sented the main witness “stated elements of ** * mercial no merit. materials then available satisfactory”. said were not Ficarra also challenge conclu- Appellants also trying in effect that work in his consisted majority that Court of the sion of the products line. to that formulate better in blending mate- Molitor teaches Attributing quoted above the statement mold, casting rials in batch court, rehearing petition in to the I II Nos. and while Bulletins Goodrich Ficarra, instance instead of to another suggest blending materials these out- peti- the inaccuracies with which No. I Bulletin states side of the mold. replete. tion is plasticizer have that after the resin and may blended, mixture be molded. admis- been Appellants’ contention that contrary points “the directly No. out that II Bulletin Molitor are sions of carry plasticizer holdings opinion exam- serves as a vehicle is one the ple particles separate resin remains credited as and of distortion. Molitor Upon liquid devising external lubricant. heat- a combina- ing plasticization place many takes with the con- features are tion in which cededly being liquid plasticizer support absorbed assertion To their old. contrary The Rubber did resin.” Goodrich Co. has admitted Molitor that findings, appellants not use the term “mix”. It used the tack tes- term the Court’s knowledge presumably given December, “blend” with the timony in Molitor molding, a blend is different from a that mixture. of slush to the nature as plaintiff’s interroga- product paste. for sale as offered answer on tory Evidently paste materials of the in 1949 Rub- have states Sun beyond progressed point molding techniques of mixture employedslush ber plastisol separate casting where the remains as squeeze small bulbs. liquid or external lubricant. molding products In slush of rubber not, casting appellants, It is as stated un- in slush as as metals well disputed (Metal Castings, p. Morris, the record that “in ac- Joe L. practises method, cused 1957) plas- the resin “in the so-called out” discarding step molds, ticizer are not blended” in as excess mate- Molitor, separate but “in rial, pouring a vessel then apart patent, from important them.” The mold, apparently is still I, only given Column is the reference retained. therefore not extremely inaccurate statement. closed. Appellant National conceded that molding evidently had slush In 1957 fringes valid, Molitor if it is and the of Molitor. elements on certain taken practises accused by therefore are conceded industry much of the switch practises National to be the of Moli- shortly plastics rubber occurred tor. The District Court found National In 1953 around this time. before guilty infringement. Presform has Corporation, and Plastic Rubber Arrow adjudged guilty infringement vinyl instance, use of the substituted appeal in this does not contest that formerly business, of its resins 80% molding. issue. The test of what the accused during this It was all slush practises do, therefore, is what is done period 47 Miller machines sold Molitor. practise Molitor. contention that patent specification The Molitor to use resins in does evidence molding technique may use the word “blend” nor does not blending it show slush entering of materials before to a statement made in the- over De- carried specification provides cember, then to the status of mold. The for the- molding casting preparation two state- batch slush thor- together ough any mixture amount “in to an ad- suitable ments taken vessel”— molding pre- in 1949 power slush “equipped mission with a driven stirrer”- “blending” not used dry pow- is word While the thoroughly the wet In order to provides claims, in one the each agitated vessel in batch ders the is going on and for heat thoroughly while rotation is mixed is when and drive thus shows that is used vessel heat tightly clamped on the cover is plasticizers agitation after into the resin is speed mold. insertion of the material in the from remove air order creased teaching blending operation in The batch vessel interior of the implicit the mold Molitor claims. is is in the heat through No of vacuum. a source during process heat employed this upon point If we are error is material specified after the first is which length at we discussed somewhat have placed in the mold. meager informa- because of the “blending” given by counsel, majority the essence things “separate operation that the Court is still convinced Syn- distinguished”. cannot contention has mate- mixed no merit for other “merge”, “coa- onyms pointed opin- “blend” rial ion, reasons. As In- New (Webster’s lesce”, upon “fuse”. Goodrich Bulletin third Unabridged, Dictionary, heavily rely appellants is not ternational which most authority defines 1955.) anticipation same under the U.S.C. statute. synonyms published August, follows: as 102. It § filing year within the before Molitor’s sunk, “Merge” swallowed be—“To two identity date June 1950. The ab- first lost; up, to lose or suggestions something general Bulletins contain sorption immersion or to the use of the Goodrich resins mold- else.” ing, calendering solution, latex tech- together, grow “Coalesce”—“To niques; I, in Bulletin No. The Goodrich body product.” or unite in one expressly Rubber Co. warns that ifas blend unite or “Fuse” —“To product pilot recommended “still a together.” melted plant product”. The fail two Bulletins application of Molitor, degree to attain the of definiteness neces- liquid or plasticizer heat, remains sary They anticipation. to constitute blending is not form lubricant contemplate separate equip- the use of quali- undisputed. A achieved. They appellants’ ment. did not teach the tempera- expert that as the fied testified witness, expert Ficarra, spending 90% plasti- liquid to 350° “the ture is raised cizers, vinyl resins, try of his would, time he casting liquid how to devise a merges batch, into and enters would obtain the result of Molitor. finely particles particles, divided fine opinion error with reference plastisol is in the the resin that of casting to the names of National Latex Products batch; when that Co. and Molded Latex Products Co. substantially completed completed way been corrected. It in no affects the blending fused.” material has been question as to whether the sale doll’s fusing in Molitor occurs and heating by Imperial Toy heads ordered Crown Bulletins Goodrich mold. Corp., April, 1950, was or was not a Bulletin No. I and II are in accord. Nos. prior use. temperature is I states that “until the raised, Encyclopedia, Modern Plastics both for sepa- plasticizer aas remains may be found in liquid lubricant for the rate or external Library. Public Cleveland Exactly same resin”. statement rehearing petition is denied. in Bulletin No. made II.

Case Details

Case Name: National Latex Products Company v. Sun Rubber Company, Akron Presform Mold Company v. Sun Rubber Company

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Date Published: Mar 10, 1960

Citation: 274 F.2d 224

Docket Number: 13569_1

Court Abbreviation: 6th Cir.