Appendix — Gerner v. Moog Industries, Inc.

‘APPENDIX A

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION

No. 64 C 482 (2)

° vier

Tuovore C. Gunver, Plaintiff,

Vs.

Moog Inpusrriss, Inc., Defendant.

‘This matter was tried to. the Court without a jury and

the Court has been duly advised by testimony, documentary

evidence and briefs of all the parties and makes the fol-

lowing findings of fact and conclusions of law:

Plaintiff, Theodore C. Gerner, is a citizen of The United

States and a ‘resident of the State of Oklahoma and de- .

fendant, Moog Industries, Inc., is a Missouri corporation |

- having its principal place of business at St. Louis, Missouri.

& Plaintiff Theodore C. Gerner is the owner of United States -

-Patent 3,044,798, granted July 17, 1962, the patent involved

in this suit. This is an action for infringement of the Ger-.

ner patent, particularly claims 1, 4 and 5..The Court has ef

jurisdiction over the parties and. of this cause of action,

‘under 28 U.S.C. 1338(a) and 1400(b). The plaintiff relies

on claim 1 as being exemplary of the infringement issue. _

‘The plaintiff through his company, National Machine |

_ Works, Inc., began selling idler arms manufactured in ac-

cordance with his patented invention during the year 1960.

D>

oo

exhibit A), a copy of which is attached hereto, and plain-.

tiff’s exhibit 2, a prototype model. In Figure 2 of the

patent drawings, the frame bracket end pivotal connection i is

e

2a

Claim. 1 of the Gerner patent is stated: as follows:

“A replacement assembly for idler arms of an auto- 7

mobile steering linkage comprising an idler arm hav-

_ing a pivotal connection at one end for journaling the

- game upon the chassis of an automobile and having a

pivotal connection , at its other endfor engagement

with a portion of a steering linkage, ‘at least one of

said pivotal’ connections including a female member

having a bore therein and a male member. received

therein, said male member including diametrically en-

larged reversely varying surfaces, upper and lower

wedge means each slidably received in and engaging’

the wall of the bore in said female member and hav-

ing wedging surfaces complementary to and engag-

_ing those: of the male member, resilient means yield-

ingly and eontinuously urging said. wedge means into

wedging contact with said male member and the female

member whereby to automatically take up wear there-

between, said’ diametrically enlarged reversely varying

surfaces being conical. :

The Gerner invention ’i is best Hivetvated “ Figures? of

the patent drawings (plaintiff's exhibit 1 and defendant’s ©

at the right-hand end. The assembly of this pivotal connec-

tion is identical with that illustrated in the ‘cross section

on the left-hand end, except it is disposed i in reverse posi- °

tion. oi gate " ‘O°

The purpose of the Gerner idler arm is to rid ‘the auto- .

mobile steering linkage of all play.

The Gerner idler arm has at the frame bracket end a fe-

male housing with a cylindrical bore therein. The bore re-

ceives three lower wedge elements which aré slid to the

bottom of the bore. The male pin with upper and léwer

reversely varying conical surfaces is positioned in the bore

»

whereby: the lower. conical) surfaée .contacts the interior.

surface of each lower wedge element. Three upper wedge

elements are then slid into the bore with their interior sur-

faces each contacting the upper conical surface of the male

pim. The exterior surface of each upper and lower wedge

element is cylindrical and makes such contact with the bore

as to inhibit relative rotational movement. The interior

surface of each upper and lower wedge element is conical

and contacts the corresponding upper and lower surface

of the male pin to permit relative rotation therebetween.

Accordingly, the beating surfaces for the pivotal connection

are those surfaces on the interior of the wedge elements

& \and on the male pin which are in contact.

~ The three upper and the three lower wedge ‘clewenda

represent axially spaced supports which .at any time de-

jine a stationary rotational axis for the idler arm at the

"frame bracket end pivotal€onnection. .A spring in combina-

tion with a.cover maintains the contact: of the male pin

‘surfaces with the interior surfaces of all the wedge ole-

ments.. ; :

The spring in urging the ‘ieee ‘upper wedge elements

onto the upper bearing ‘surface of the male pin foreés the

three upper and three lower. wedge elements to éxpand due

to. the eonical shape of the ypper and lower bearing sur-

faces of the male pin. The force expanding the upper and

lower wtdge elements produces a wedging contact between

their exterior cylindrical | surface and.the bore surface..

_ The downward force on the three upper wedge elements

also urges the male pin into its lowermost position with 3

its lower bearing surface against the interior conical sur- .

face. of each lower wedge element which in turn are each

_- in contact with the bore. Thus, any machining imprecision

: existing between the bore, the wedge elements and the male

pin is automatically compensated for and any looseness |

which might otherwise exist is eliminated. .

. As..wear takes place during normal operation between

the two conical surfaces of the male pin and the interior

a 4" ae . \:

surfaces of the six wedge elements, the spring forces the

three upper wedge elements further into the bore against .

the upper conical surface of the male pin and forces the

male pin: down on the three lower wedge elements, thereby

' taking up any wear therebetween and at the time causing

all the wedge elements to expand further (if. necessary)

against the surface of the bore. Accordingly, all wear oc-

curring in the pivotal connection is automatically taken up-

by adjustment of the three upper and three lower “wedge

elements and the male pin:

In the event the pivotal connection is subject to a shock

whereby. the upper or lower coni¢al surface of the male

pin is temporarily dislodged from contact with any of the

_ three upper wedge elements or three lower wedge elements,

the force of thesspring will automatically reset contact of- .

+ ‘the components in the same manner as described above -’

with respect to assembly of the pivotal connection.

Defendant is presently manufacturing a series “of idler

arm structures illustrated by plaintiff’s exhibit 8a through

, .8r, which are drawings of the structures, plaintiff’s exhibits

- 4,5 and 6, physical models, and defendant’s exhibit I, an

itlustrative model of the Moog stru¢ture. Defandant’s ex-

hibit D, a drawing of the structure, is attached hereto.

Defendant had been manufacturing and selling a ball

bearing idler arm kit for many years. prior to the Ger-

ner patent, which eliminated looseness. The idler arms of

Moog, which plaintiff contends infringes his patent, were

designed in 1963. The engineers of defendant Moog had

examined the Gerner structures, as well as those of other .

competitors, and the eee art, before designing the ques- ;

. tioned structures. = | >

‘+ Tn comparing the Seve idler arnt and the. leg idlet

_ -arm there are certain differences apparént.

The three lower and three upper wedge elements of Ger-

ner are loosely slidably received in the bore of the female

_ member. These wedge elements engage the reversély

¥ . ®

J

' Sa

ear surfaces of the male pin and the spring on the up-

per | wedge elements permit 4 yielding and continuously

urging of the wedge elements into tat ‘contact. with®

the pin. ~ 3

In the Moog device the lower element is a solid ring ele-

ment which is forced by. pressure into the femal housing

and remains fixed at that point. It is not three separate

wedge elements. It cannot slide up and down..: :

It is to be noted here that the language of claim 1 ‘of

the Gerner patent is as follows: G

“. . . upper ‘and lower wedge means ‘each slidably

. réceived in and-engaging the wall of the bore in said

female member and having wedging surfaces com-

pene? to and engaging those of the male mem-

ber,...” g. ©

The three upper wedge ‘elements of Moss and the bottom

ring have only point contact with the male pin. In Gerner

the surfaces of the wedge elements have complementary

conical surfaces that contact the male pin.

The spring in Moog has no effect on the bottom element

which is fixed, but only urges point contact of. the upper

wedges with the male pin. The spring in Gerner urges |

continuous wedging of both the top and bottom wedge ele-.

ments with the male pin.

Even if this Court were to find the uae patent valid,

the difference between Moog and Gerner makes it doubt.

ful if there is any infringement. However, it is not neces-

‘sary to- decide this question in view of the fact that after

reviewing the prior art this Court is of the opinion that

the Gerner patent does not stand the tests necessary to

make it a valid patent.

-The Constitution, Art. I, $8, el. 8, seit Congress.

“To promote the oe of. . usefal Arts, by securing —

for limited Times to . . Inventors the exclusive Right

7 6a :

to their . .*. Discoveries.” The nan Court in Graham

v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), pointed out |

“The clause is both a grant of power and a limi-

tation . . . Congress may not authorize the issuance of

‘patents whose effects are to remove existent knowledge

- from the public domain, or to restrict free access to

‘materials already. available. “s

4

The Court said further in quoting Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, o

11 How. 248 (S.Ct. 1851), lc. 267:

“[U]nless more ingenuity and skill . ; . were e required.

. than were possessed by an ordinary mechanic ac-

quainted with the business, there was an absence of that

degree of skill and ingenuity which constitute essen-

tial elements of every invention. In other words, the

improvement is the work of the skillful mechanic, not

that-of the inventor.”

The Court went on to emphasize that Congress in § 103 of

thé 1952 Patent Act has made the language of Hotchkiss

a) statutory condition by requiring the invention to be one

that was not obvious to a person skilled in the arts, when

comparing the invention’ to the prior arts.

In a recent case, Kell-Dot Industries, Inc., v. Graves,

(May 18, 1966), the Eighth Circuit in reversing the district

court and finding a patent invalid, i at page 11 of the

slip opinion:

re

“We are convinced here that anyone skilled in the

art with’ patent office references before him could have,

without the exercise of any inventive faculty, combined

old elements known to the art and made plaintiff's

machine. Assuming that the patent in suit was an im-

provement over the prior art, it still does not rise to

the level: - i oteemeat ai es

“>

7a

The facts in the Gerner patent fall within the language

of the Eighth Circuit and the Supreme Court in that the —

Gerner patent is invalid because it is an obvious change

. to anyone skilled in the arts and does: not rise to the stand-

ard necessary to make it patentable.

The file jackét of the Patent Ofc shows that all claims

were initially rejected. After minor changés seven of the

claims were allowed. Reference was made by the Patent

Office to: the following prior art: 1,261,856, Rule;

1,871,861, Rossman; 1,985,728, Ingersoll; 2,037,786, Huf-

ferd; 2,048,803, Marles; 2,544,582, Booth; 2,745,688, Far- .

rington; 2,853,327, Traugott; and foreign acai 513, 858,

Italy (Sell).°

‘The defendant relies on the referenced prior | rt and

additional patents: Swiss, 111,900; Greenwalt, 2,685,451;

Cain, 2,769,651; Prichard, . 926, 466 ; and Herbenar, 2,937, 033

_ and 2,944,829.

The Ingersoll patent granted in 1934 is a ball and socket a

joint used in cross tie rods connecting the steering arms

of the front axle in motor vehicles. This patent drawing

shows almost the identical principal [sic] applied in Gerner. ©

Figures 1, 2 and 3 of defendant’s exhibit B, a copy of

which is attached hereto, show socket pieces with reversely

tapered surfaces, slidably received into the base of a hous-

ing, an upper and. lower set of rings having tapered sur-

faces engaging the tapered surfaces of said socket pieces, «

and a spring to force the rings in continuous contact with

the tapered surfaces of the socket pieces. ‘The patent addi- —

tionally has a ball shaped stud within the tapered socket

pieces. The principal [sic] of Ingersoll is not greatly dif-

ferent from Gerner.

The Swiss patent granted in 1925, while being used as

a connecting joint for shock absorbing mechanisms shows

a similar device to Gerner’s. Defendant’s exhibit F (figure

16),a copy of which is attached hereto, shows the reversely ;

tapered pin fitting into a pivot assembly with two wedging

§ : .

4 ' 8a

rings fitting against the reversely tapered pin. The rings

fit into a housing and in this instance there is a leaf spring

(defendant’s exhibit F, figure 19), which may be used to

_maintain the relative position of the bearing surfaces.

‘The Hufferd patent granted in 1931 is an improved

form of adjustable ball joint connection for the tie rod and

drag links used in the steering mechanism of automobile

vehicles. The patent has the ball.stud surrounded by posi-

tioned tapered sleeves with a spring to take up wear and

not affect the alignment of the tie rod. The. spring forces

the wedgelike segments together. é

Without going into all the other referenced patents; but |

considering briefly Cain, granted in 1956, for an adjust-

able idler arm support and Herbenar, granted i in 1960, for

_ a vehicle idler arm assembly, we can see that Gerner is

basically a slightly different arrangement of the art which

is already patented or in the public domain. |

‘ When the patent drawings of Gerner, the Suion patent

and the Ingersoll patent are placed side by side, and the

pertinent characteristics are set out in identical colors, it

is clear to anyone skilled or unskilled how little variation

in fact exists between Gerner and the prior art. Therefore,

copies of ‘these drawings together with a cross section of

the Moog device are attached to and made a part of this

opinion for the purpose of clarity.

The plaintiff tries to get some comfort from the case of

United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966), but the facts

in that case are very different. In that case the Court found

the device passed the separate tests of novelty, nonobvious-

ness and utility. The battery was the first water-activated

battery ever invented. ‘The Patent Office cited not a single

reference when it was granted. After the patent was fur- -

nished to the “Army and Navy.in 1941 and tests were made

and-the battery was studied for a year, the National Bu-

. reau of Standards experts had doubts that the battery

9a

would work. So, certainly it was not obvious to one skilled

in the field. te 2

The Patent Office in Gerner did not consider or reference

Cain or the Swiss patent 111900. Had these been consid-

_ ered, they may have reached a different result. . sete

‘The Court, agrees with the plaintiff that the grant ‘of

a-patent carries with it a presumption of validity. How-

ever, this is a rebuttable presumption, Steffan v. Weber

H eating, 237 F.2d 601 (8 Cir. 1956), and validity of an in-

vention is ultimately a question that the courts must decide,

Continental Farm Equip. v. Love, 199 F.2d 202 (8 Cir.

1952).

‘The Geveee patent when considered with the prior art

and particularly that not cited by the Patent Office-is in-

valid because the combination of old elements is obvious

to anyone with ordinary mechanical skill.

Accordingly, a judgment will be entered for the defendant

and against the plaintiff. Defendant’s counsel is directed.

to prepare the judgment in accordance with this memoran-

dum and submit the same to the Court and a copy to counsel

- for plaintiff ‘within 10 days.

Dated this 8th eed of June, 1966.

/s/ James H. MEREDITH

eines States District Judge

10a

July 17, 1962 - T. C. GERNER - 3,044,798

: REPLACEMENT UNIT FOR IDLER ARM BRACKET

Filed March 6, 1969 : 2 Sheete-Sheet 1

“67

>

“4 ,

.

| § ;

Pe ys

-§ >»

- $i

ie oe

eo 2 &

oc ww

5

S

: —

ee Te

12a

a ee

See ea

9.6 tml ¢

“GRANTED 1925, DEFENDANT'S EXHTBIT ¥

SWISS PATENT 111900,

3g ie

OOGITT et Meg

. | | soabpwesyy swojjoonddy py 2uTodwoy

“14a

. APPENDIX B

Unitep STATES Cover OF APPEALS :

FOR THE EIGHTH CIROUIT ae

No: 18,525

_'Txeopors C. GEeRNEr, Appellant,

ae rer. :

Mooa Inbustrirs, Inc., Appellee.:

Appeal from the United States District Court

ea -- for the Eastern District of Missouri.

* @

[September 19, 1967.]

»

. v.

‘Before BLAckMuN, ‘Menarry and Gisson, Circuit J udges.

7 ey Circuit J udge.

The sole issue for determination upon this appeal i is the

validity of United States Patent No. 3,044,798 which issued

to Theodore C. Gerner on July 17, 1962. Gerner, a citizen

and resident of Oklahoma, brought suit against Moog In-

dustries, Inc., a. Missouri corporation, alleging infginge-

ment of the patent. Moog denied infringement and addi- °

tionally set up as a defense the invalidity of the patent.

’ The District Court in an opinion published at 254 F.

Supp. 969 hoa D. Mo. — held: the patent invalid as

an 15a’ .

being sy combination of old ¢lements obvious to anyone

with ordinary mechanical skill: We affirm.

The Patent in Issue

| Oe

The Gerner patent, is a mechanical structure relating to

the steering mechanism of an automobile. It is designed (

as a replacement unit for what is called an idler arm

bracket, its object being to eliminate-looseness or end play

¢

“in the steering linkage. An idler arm is part of the auto- .

mobile parallelogram steering linkage. It has a frame’

bucket end attaching to the front portion of the chassis

opposite what is called the “pitman”_arm on the steering .

column. The other end of the idler arm supports: the steer-

ing linkage. Originally, the Patent Office rejected all claims

but subsequently, upon amendment, the patent was issued.

Claim 1 is the broadest in the patent and the elements and”

functions of the device are embodied therein:

“1. A replacement assembly for idler arms of an

automobile steering linkage comprising an idler arm

having a pivotal connection at one end for journaling

“the same upon the chasis of an automobile and having

a pivotal connection at its other end for engagement

-with a portion,of .a steering linkage, at least one of

said pivotal connectiohs including a female member

having a bore therein and a male member received

therein, said male member including diametrically

enlarged reversely varying surfaces, upper and lower

" wedge means each slidably received in and engaging

the wall of the bore in said female fnember and having

‘wedging surfaces complementary to and engaging

those of the male member, resilient means yieldingly

and continuously urging said wedge means into wedg-

ing contact with said male member and the female

member whereby to automatically take up wear there-

between, said diametrically enlarged reversely varying’

- surfaces being conical.”

. . , —

“

° ge

f f v

°

£

eee te rise Oe eee eae i Senate . anes

Ps |

' 16a

7 ?

ipneitealie the Gerner an entbodies a female hous-

diag with a cylindrical hore whichgreceives three lower

wedge or bearing elements slidably placed. therein. The

male member has upper and lower reversible varying coni-

cal surfaces and js positioned in the bore so ‘that the lower

conical surfaces contact the interjor surface of the lower

bearing. Three upper wedge or bearing elements are like-

| _ wise slidably introduced into the bore with interior: sur-

faces contacting the upper conical surface of the male pin.

The exterior of eath upper and lower bearing is cylindrical

-and designed to make contact with the bore surface so. as

\.to inhibit rotational movement. The interior. surface of

each hearing element is conical in design to contact the

corresponding surface of the male pin to permit relative .

rotation between. A spring maintains contact between the

- male pin surfaces and the surfaces of the bearing elements

and urges the three upper bearing elements into a wedging

contact with the upper bearing surface of the male pin.

This force produces a wedging contact urging the male

pin into its lower most position and contacts against the

interior surface of ‘each tower bearing element. The effect

of this is to automatically compensate for any tolerance

that might exist between the bore, the wedge or-bearing

elements and the male pin in ordér to eliminate any loose-,

ness that might exist.

Cais does not claim that his is the. first idler arm eo

only’ that it meets the statutory requirement. for patent- —

ability. As ‘a matter of fact, other manufacturers, includ-

ing Moog, were producing idler arms before the Gerner

_ patent but their ball bearing structures did not lend them- -

selves as well to one _— automobile, the Chevrolet.

The Prior Art

Obviously, this is a crowded field. as the inet cited

-in the Patent Office file are: 1,261, 856, Rule; -1,87 1 861 Ross-

man; 1; 985, 728 Aaepeeees 2 037, 786. ‘Hufferd; 2,048,803

J s

Seen ee

se ae 17a

: Marles; 0,544,582 Booth; 2, 745,6 688 Farrington et al;

2,853,327 Traugott ; and 513858 Italy.

In addition to the prior art referenced by the Patent

Office, Moog introduced at trial 111,900 Swiss; 2,769,651

_ Cain; 2,685,451 Greenwalt; 2,826,466 Pritchard; 2,937,033

Herbenar; and 2,994,829 Herbenar.

Patent drawings from Gerner, Ingersoll and Swiss, as

-well' as the accused device, are attached to the District

Court’s opinion and we adopt them by reference.

» The Swiss patent, as ‘does Gerner, includes a male and

pans member with oppositely formed conical surfaces.on

the male member and with both upper and lower wedges ©

or bearings slidably received in the female member having °

surfaces engaging those of the male member. It also em-

~~~“ hodies spring means which continuously urge the wedge

means into wedging contact with the male member.’

Cain: also embodies a male and female member with

- oppositely formed conical surfaces on the male member and

with upper and lower wedge means with surfaces comple-

mentary.to and engaging those of the male member. Cain

* does not embody a spring but is constructed so the wedge

means can be threaded up to adjust for wear.

The Ingersoll patent contains a male and female member

... With upper and lower wedge means and the bore of the —

female member having -surfaces complementary to and .

engaging those of the male member.

The trial court found that a consideration of the Cain

and Herbenar patents revealed that Gerner is basically a

slightly different arrangement of the art which is already

patented or in the publie domain. The. court stated. that

. When the patent drawings of Gerner, Swiss and Ingersoll

_>-are placed side by side and the patent characteristics set

P a out in identical colors, it is clear even to the unskilled how

little variation in fact. exists between Gerner and the prior

_. art. Noting that the Patent Office in Gerner did not con-

sw

a 2 oe

'

18a ;

sider or reference the Cain ‘or Swiss patents, the trial

court observed that had these two patents been considered

the action of the Patent Office might have been different.

Professor Fisher, an expert for Moog, testified that all

of the structures called for in Gerner Claim 1 are found in °

the Ingersoll patent and also that the Swiss patent, struc-

ture for structure, absolutely responds to the Gerner

patent.

Gerner argues ‘stenuously that both the trial court and ,

Moog’s expert exercised hindsight in‘ arriving, af their

eonclusions, but we disagree. The trial court’s opinion

. not only reflects an intimate knowledge of the structure

and functions of the patented device but a scrupulous

adherence to the teachings of the Supreme Court in

Graham v. John Deere Co., 383-U.S. 1 (1966), and its com-

‘panion cases. A number of our post-Graham patent opin-

ions holding invalidity for obviousness under 35 U.S.C.

§ 103, as interpreted and taught by Graham, are cited in

L &@ A Products, Inc. v. Britt Tech Corp., 365 F.2d 83

(8th Cir. 1966): See also Superior Concrete Accessories

v. Richmond Screw Anchor Co.; 369 F.2d 353 (8th Cir.

1966) ; Imperial Stone Cutters, Inc. v. Schwartz, 370 F°2d

425 (8th Cir.. 1966). Further discussion here on the sub-

ject of nonpatentability for obviousness under $103 as

interpreted in Graham, supra, is unnecessary. 7

- Gerner points out that ‘the Ingersoll and Swiss patents

relate to pivotal connections generally and not replace-

ment idler arms. Prior art, however, includes earlier de- -

vices whether or not in related areas to the patented

device. Skee-Trainer, Inc. v. Garelick Mfg..Co., 361 F.2d

895, 898 (8th Cir. 1966). The Ingersoll: patent referred to

a socket joint on the end of a tie rod and the Swiss patent

‘is for a shock absorber and not directly for an idler arm, .

yet both relate to automobile mechanisms. Moog’s expert

witness testified that if somebody wanted a joint that takes

up wear, it would only be necessary to utilize the Swiss

disclosure. . :

19a +

It is argued that the, three-section wedge means of

Gerner is not disclosed in the prior art but the difference

appears to be in configuration only because the prior art

discloses upper and lower wedge means, which according

to the witnesses perform. the same function. But even if

the addition of a new element to an otherwise old com-

bination may create-a new combination, this factor in,

itself does not eliminate the requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 103 |

' that such a new combination is unpatentable unless the

invention as-a whole was unobyious to one of ordinary

skill in the art at the time it was made. Cf. —-*

of Grout, 377 F.2d 1019 (C.C.P.A. 1967).

We are convinced that the disclosures found i in the prior .

art buttressed by the testimony of the expert witness pro-

vided a proper factual basis for the trial court’s deter-

mination’ of obviousness of the claimed invention under

35 U.S.C. $103. To paraphrase the language of the Su-

preme Court in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood; 11 How. ‘248,

quoted in Graham, supra, 383 U.S. at 11—if there is im-

provement in the Gerner patent it is the work of a Skilled.

mechanic and not that of an inventor. | |

The secondary considerations—commercial success, fail-

ure of others, and long-standing need—do not, in our opin-

_ion, approach in substance those in Graham, supra, which

failed to impress the Supreme Court in its consideration

of the companion Calmar case, 383 US. 1, 35, 36, so as

to tilt the balance to patent validity where the device fails

to meet the. nonobvious standard of $103. Cf. Kell-Dot

Industries, Inc. v. Graves, 361 F.2d 25, 30, 31 — Cir.

_ 1966). |

The ‘Jedement of the District Court holding ‘invalid

United States Patent No. 3,044,798 issued to: Theodore C.

Gerner, July 17, 1962, is affirmed. :

A true copy.

Attest:

Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

20a

z

. APPENDIX C_.

Eighth Circuit Post-Graham Decisions.

Invalid Reversed

Valid* Affirmed .

1. Kell-Dot Industries, Inc. v. Graves,

361 F.2d 25, 149 USPQ 717 (8th Cir.

1966) : _ .Invalid-' Reversed

| 2. American Infra-Red Radiant Co. v.

Lambert Industries, Inc., 360 F.2d

a

977, 149 USPQ.722 (8th Cir. 1966) Invalid Reversed

3. Skee-Trainer, Inc. v. Garelick Mfg.

. Co., 361 F.2d 895, 150 USPQ 7 (8th

Cir: 1966) Invalid

4. Piel. M anufacturing Company Ve

; George A. Rolfes Co., 363 F.2d 57, .

150 USPQ 330. (8th Cir. 1966) © Invalid

5. Automated Building Components v.

“Hydro-Air Engineering, 362 F.2d —

989, 150 USPQ 421 (8th Cir. 1966) Invalid

6. Superior Concrete Accessories v.

Richmond Screw Anchor Co., 369

F.2d 353, 151 USPQ 677 (8th Cir:

1966) | Invalid.

7. Imperial Stone Cutters, Inc. Vv.

Schwartz, 370 F.2d 425, 152 USPQ '

91 (8th Cir. 1966) . : Invalid

8. L & A Products, Inc. v. Britt Tech

Corporation, 365 F.2d 83, 150 USPQ

Affirmed

Affirmed

Affirmed —

ied

Affirmed

770 (8th Cir. sa . | Invalid Reversed

* The patent validity determination is indicated valid where the

Court held at least one claim of a patent in suit valid.

‘Invalid Reversed

foe Valid* Affirmed

9. Greening Nursery Co. v. J & R Tool

& Mfg. Co., 376 F.2d 738, 153 USPQ. a

660 (8th Cir. 1967) Invalid Affirmed

10. General Mills, Inc. v. Pillsbury Co.,

378 F.2d 666, 154 USPQ 207 (8th

Cir. 1967) - Invalid Reversed

11. Gerner v. Moog Industries, ng

— F.2d — , 155 USPQ 232 (8th oe

’ Cir. 1967) | Invalid Affirmed

* The patent validity determination is indicated valid where the

Court held at least one claim of a patent in suit valid.

*

fe :

. Toro Manufacturing Corporation v.

22

APPENDIX D

Seventh Circuit janes Decisions

Invalid Reversed

Jacobsen Manufacturing Company,

357 F.2d 901, 148 USPQ 628 (7th

Valid* |

Affirmed

Cir. 1966) ~ ‘ Invalid Reversed

. Eugene A. Wahl and Vibra Screw

Feeders Inc. v. Carrier Manufactur-

ing “Co., Inc., 358 F.2d 1, 148 USPQ

698 (7th Cir. 1966). Valid

. King - Seeley Thermos Co. v. Tastee

Freez Industries, Inc., 357 F.2d 875, ~

149 USPQ 4 (7th Cir. 1966). - Valid

. Corn Products Company v. Standard

Brands, Inc., 359 F.2d 739, 149 USPQ ©

316 (7th Cir. 1966) Invalid

S

- Benjamin A. Skirow and: Nathan

Skirow, d/b/a Skirow Brothers, a

partnership, v. Roberts Colomal

House, Inc,, 361 F.2d 388, 149 USPQ

882 (7th Cir. 1966) Invalid -

. Continental Can Company, Ine. v.

Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation,

362 F.2d 123, 150 USPQ 1 (7th Cir.

1966) Valid

‘ Automated Building Components, Inc.

v. Structomatic, Inc., 362 F.2d 529,

150 USPQ 159 (7th Cir. 1966)". Invalid

held at least one claim of a patent i in suit valid.

Affirmed

Affirmed

_ Affirmed .

Affirmed

Affirmed

3

he patent validity determination is indicated valid where the

— ae

~ Valid*

8. Rex Ghainbelt, Inc. v. General Kine-

matics Corporation, 363 F.2d 336,

-150 USPQ 319 (7th Cir. 1966) © Valid

9. Zegers v. Zegers, Inc., 365 F.2d 156,

150 USPQ 409 (7th Cir. 1966) — Valid

10. Wen Products Inc. v. Portable Elec-°

tric Tools, Inc., 367 F.2d 764, 151

USPQ 366 (7th Cir. 1966) Valid

11. Walt Disney Productions v. Fred A.

Niles Com. Ctr., Inc., 369 F.2d 230,

151 USPQ 528 (7th Cir.1966) Valid

12 TT. P.: Laboratories, Ine. ve Huge,

371 F.2d 231, 151 USPQ 605 (7th

Cir. 1966) - | Invalid

13. Strzalkowski v. Beltone Electronics :

. Corporation, 371 F.2d 237, 151 US-

PQ 675 (7th. Cir. 1966) Invalid

14. Williams v: V. R: Myers Pump and

Supply, Inc., 371 F.2d 192, 152 ~ ;

USPQ 1 (7th Cir. 1966) Valid

15. La Maur, Inc. v. DeMert & Dough-

erty, Inc., F.2d , 152 USPQ.

| 163 (7th Cir. 1965) en Invalid .

an Armstrong v. Motorola, Inc., 374

F.2d. 764, 152 USPQ 535 (7th Cir,

1967) Valid

- 17. Novo Industrial iaiidiie v.

Standard Screw Company, 374 F.2d

824, 152 USPQ 543 (7th Cir. 1967) . Invalid

. Reversed

Affirmed —

Affirmed

Affirmed

Affirmed

Reversed

Affirmed

Affirmed

Affirmed

Affirmed

Affirmed °

Affirmed

* The patent validity determination i is’ indicated valid where the

Court held at least one claim of a patent in suit valid.

Invalid

_ Valid*

18. Bishman Manufacturing Co. v. Stew-

* - art-Warner Corp., —— F.2d —, |

” 153 USPQ 496 (7th Cir. 1966) _ Valid

19. Groen v. General Foods Corp., ——

' F.2d ——, 152 USPQ 210 (7th Cir. |

~ 1966) , | - Invalid

20. Pambello v. Hamilton Clisce, Inc.,

377 F.2d 445, 153 USPQ 658 (7th

_Cir. 1967) Invalid

21. Sanford Research Co. v. Eberhard

Faber Pen & Pencil Co., 379 F.2d |

512, 154 USPQ 199 (7th Cir. 1967) Invalid

22. Gass v. Montgomery Ward & Co.,

— F.2d —, 195 USPQ 199 (7th

Cir. 1967) Invalid

23. American Photocgpy iaticein Co.

' vy. Rovico, Inc., —— F.2d —, 15

USPQ 119 (7th Cir. 1967) ~ Valid

24. Unarco Industries, Inc. v. Evans

Products Co., —— F.2d ——, 155

USPQ 230 (7th Cir. 1967) | Invalid

25. Leach v. Badger Northland, Inc.,

—— F.2d —, 155 USPQ 365 (7th

Cir. 1967) Invalid

26. Technicon Instruments Corp. _v.

Coleman Instruments, —— F.2d

——, 155 USPQ 369 (7th Cir. 1967) Valid

Reversed

Affirmed

_ Affirmed

Affirmed

Reversed

Affirmed

Reversed

Affirmed -

Affirmed

=

Affirmed

* The patent validity determination is indicated ‘valid where the.

Court held at least qne claim of a patent in suit valid, .