Wilson

Angelus Sanitary Can Mach. Co. v. Wilson

Good Law
7 F.2d 314·1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 3537
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 3, 1925No. 4420California2,073 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hunt, J.

(after stating the facts as above). Machines for capping and compressing can heads and double-seaming' without the use of solder were old in the art when Wilson and Sumner entered the field. Two steps mark the operation: First, that by which the flange on a cap is bent partly around the can and body flange so as initially to interlock the flanges; and, second, that by which the interlocked flanges are rolled or curled to complete the seam. This litigation pertains principally to the first operation. Some of the earlier devices had two seaming operations and encircling seamirig m§ans, but it is not shown that any had continuously operating two turrets with a transfer means between, and means on the first turret for effecting a first seaming operation, and means on the second turret for producing' a second and final seaming operation. It is on the combination of the parts and features of the whole machine that patentees claim a monopoly.

The proof is satisfactory that the structure of the "Wilson and Sumner patent (for brevity called the Wilson patent) is such, that in the first operation the gears are so arranged with relation to the rack that the can will make in the first turret…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.