Fitite Cedar Shake Co. v. C. B. Shingle Co.

Good Law
99 F.2d 110·39 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 168·1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 2820
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 23, 1938No. 8465California1,560 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Wilbur, J.

This is an appeal from a final decree of the District Court holding claims 1, 3 and 8 of Patent No. 1,820,445, claim 2 of Patent No. 1,634,789, and process claim of Patent *111 No. 1,764,412, not infringed and dismissing the bill of complaint.

Infringement of Patent No. 1,820,445.

Patent No. 1,820,445 was granted Kenneth Dale Craft August 25, 1931 on an application filed February 11, 1925, and is for a combination in a machine adapted to manufacture imitation shake shingles from ordinary shingles. The idea of making imitation shake shingles from ordinary shingles was not conceived by Craft but by Charles E. Putman who obtained patent No. 1,577,150 for an .imitation shake shingle. That patent was declared invalid by this court in Putman v. Beaver State Shingle Co., 46 F.2d 353 , where it was held that the mere imitation of a well known article was not patentable unless there was novelty in the means by which the imitation was carried out.

Craft’s patented machine transforms an ordinary shingle into a shake shingle by grooving it three-fourths of its length from its butt. When laid, the grooved or corrugated part of the treated shingle is designed to be exposed to view, the…

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.