Aerotec Industries of Calif. v. Pacific Scientific Company

This is an appeal from a judgment holding certain claims of appellee’s patents valid and infringed. The patents are Pfankuch, No. 2,845,233, claims 7 and 9, and Cushman, No. 2,845,234, claims 1 and 5. We reverse.

Appellants’ device is described in the Spielman patent, No. 2,982,492. Pfankuch was issued July 29, 1958, Cushman on the same day, Spielman on May 2, 1961. Strange to say, neither Pfankueh n°r Cushman nor any of the prior art cited in either of them is cited as prior art in Spielman.

All three devices have the same stated objective, described in somewhat different ways in the introductory paragraphs in each patent. Typical is the following, from Pfankuch:

The opening paragraphs of Spielman are strikingly similar.

Each device is designed to be attached to the seat of the vehicle, and to be connected to the shoulder harness of the seat occupant. In each, the attachment is by a cord or a strap, wound on a reel housed in the device. In each, the reel is spring wound, so that when the cord or strap is pulled out, the spring is tightened and when the tension on the cord or strap is released the spring causes it to be rewound on the reel. In each the reel is so designed…