SMITH, ADMINISTRATRIX,
v.
SPRINGDALE AMUSEMENT PARK, LIMITED, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Smith, as administratrix of a patent holder's estate, sued Springdale Amusement Park for infringing three patents related to dog racing devices, but the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' dismissal of the complaint. The Court held that one patent claim was not infringed because the defendant's rigid arm device did not match the hinged and wheeled arm required by the claims, another patent was invalid for lack of invention, and the third patent for a starting cage was invalid because its elements represented only ordinary mechanical skill rather than patentable invention.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Hughes delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit for the infringement of letters patent No. 1,379,224, No. 1,507,440, and No. 1,507,439, relating to devices for dog races. Judgment in the District Court dismissing the complaint was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 39 F. (2d) 92; 40 F. (2d) 173. This Court granted a writ of certiorari because of conflict with a decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. American Electric Rabbit Assn. v. New Orleans Kennel Club, 26 F. (2d) 1016.
Patent No. 1,379,224 was before this Court in Smith v. Magic City Kennel Club, 282 U. S. 784. Referring to the prior art, the Court found that the patentee’s improvement was in a limited field. There was no invention in a combination consisting of a covered rail track, conveyor car and an arm projecting over the course and connected with a mechanical lure carried before racing dogs. The patent could be sustained only by virtue of the distinctive feature of the arm employed. This was described in claim 1 as “ an arm extending through the longitudinal opening of the casing in a projecting position over the track and adapted to carry a lure, and a wheel rotatably mounted on and supporting the arm at the projecting end thereof,” and, in claim 2, as “ a horizontally extending arm hinged to said car extending midway of said course, a wheel rotatably mounted near the end of said arm, and resting upon the ground, a platform supported by said arm and a lure or quarry mounted upon said platform for attracting the dogs.” The Court reached the conclusion that a rigid, horizontal arm, without hinge or wheel, was not the subject of either claim. In this view, the device of the defendant does not infringe.
Patent No. 1,507,440, relating to “ housing for conveyor cars and tracks,” we have held to be invalid for want of invention. Smith v. Magic City Kennel Club, supra. Patent No. 1,507,439 is for an improvement in starting cages for racing dogs. The single claim is as follows:
“ In a starting cage for racing dogs, a frame comprising a box-like structure divided into a plurality of compartments and comprising walls formed of wire mesh partially covered with fabric, individual rear doors for each of the compartments and a single front door hinged at its upper end to the top walls of the frame, divergent inclined members secured to the top of the said frame and extending upwardly and outwardly beyond the face of the front door and having their outer ends in the plane of the side walls of the box-like structure, springs secured to the outer ends of said inclined members and to the door and lying in the plane of the hinges, and a latch at the bottom of the cage for coaction with the lower edge of the front door to hold the front door normally closed against the tension of said springs, said springs adapted to raise the front door upon release of the latch.”
In the light of the proceedings in the Patent Office upon the rejection of earlier claims, the claim can have but a narrow application. We agree with the Circuit Court of Appeals that the particular sort of spring support and the wire mesh partitions partially covered with fabric, as well as the other elements, are but forms of construction within the range of ordinary mechanical skill. There was an utter absence of invention justifying the issue of this patent. ^ ~ , * Decree affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Permutit Co. v. Graver Corp., 284 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1931)…gested is that of placing the means at the lowest point of the casing. It does not require the exercise of the inventive faculty to place at the bottom of a receptacle the outlet through which it is to be drained, Smith v. Springdale Amusement Park, 283 U. S. 121, 123; Carbice Corp. v. American Patents [*61] Development Co., 283 U. S. 420, 421; Concrete Appliances Co. v. Gomery, 269 U. S. 177, 185. Affirmed. The patent was first sustained by the District Court for western New York. Permutit Co. v. Harvey L…
-
Demco, Inc. v. Doughnut Mach. Corp., 62 F.2d 23 (4th Cir. 1932)…vention. The same is true with respect to claim 51 of this patent in so far as it relates to the location of the driving machinery beneath the grease receptacle. This was not invention but a mere matter of mechanical skill. Smith v. Springdale Park, 283 U. S. 121, 123, 51 S. Ct. 368, 75 L. Ed. 878. Nor do we think that any infringement of the Nye patent was shown. The essence of that patent was the use of vanes on a submerged conveyor to hold the doughnuts in spaced relationship, with submerging conveyors a…1 / 2
-
Rosenberg v. Carr Fastener Co., 51 F.2d 1014 (2d Cir. 1931)…; Carbice Corporation v. American Patents Development Corporation, 51 S. Ct. 496, 75 L. Ed. 819, decided May 18, 1931; American Fruit Growers, Inc., v. Brogdex Co., 283 U. S. 1, 51 S. Ct. 328, 75 L. Ed. 801; Smith v. Springdale Amusement Park, Ltd., 283 U. S. 121, 51 S. Ct. 368, 75 L. Ed. 878. The decree is affirmed.…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smith v. Magic City Kennel Club, 282 U.S. 784 (U.S. 1931)
- Rheinstrom Bros. Co. v. Steamship Ansaldo SAN Giorgio I, 26 F.2d 1016 (2d Cir. 1928)
- Smith v. Springdale Amusement Park (S.D. Ohio 1928)
- Smith v. Springdale Amusement Park, 40 F.2d 173 (6th Cir. 1930)