3. Patent No. 2,324,241, issued to A. O. Schoeninger July 13, 1943 and, by reason of assignment, title vests in the plaintiff.
4. Patent No. 2,324,241 relates to a close basket weave chain construction used in making wrist watch bracelets. Plaintiff's patent utilizes special links of identical form, which are interlocked without hinge rings or hinge pins. These special links have a central body portion and upper and lower sets of bar sections which extend in the same direction from the upper and lower edges of the body portion, bar sections in each set being of an odd number, and being alternately short and long for one set and alternately long and short for the other set. When these links are interlocked the long bar sections of one link lock over the short bar sections of the preceding link to form a flexible basket weave chain of solid appearance.
5. The prior art included the use of hinge pins which held the stamped links together; also interlocking stamped links, having equal length bars were used, independently of the hinges, resulting in equal alternate spacings between links.
6. The patents of Prestinari, Bellavance, Augenstein and Schofer contain some features which are common to the Schoeninger patent, but none contain the teaching of a short arm cut to effect the close knit weave and cannot be read on the Schoeninger patent.
7. The disclosure of the short bar cut is apparent from the figures and drawings accompanying the patent in suit.
8. The art is highly developed and the field for invention is narrow.
9. The teaching of Schoeninger on the use of alternate short and long bars to effect an interlocking close weave knit of stamped links is inventive and an improvement over the prior art and therefore patentable.
10. Defendant uses a depression on its short bar in lieu of the cut that plaintiff employs.
11. This depression causes defendant's product to have a surface less even than plaintiff's.
12. Defendant's use of this depression does not amount to the use of an equivalent.
13. There was no deception in the procurement of Schoeninger Patent #2,324,241.
14. It does not appear that plaintiff has abused its patent rights by virtue of a certain advertisement or notice in the 'Jewelers Circular Keystone' on May, 1946. Hence the charge of unclean hands is dismissed.
Conclusions of Law
1. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties involved.
2. The Schoeninger Patent #2,324,241 is valid.
3. In a highly developed art, where the field for invention is narrow, in order to sustain an allegation of infringement there must be shown a complete adoption of the entire patent in all its elements, or the substitution of an equivalent.
4. Defendant did not infringe on the Schoeninger patent, #2,324,241.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.