VAN KANNEL REVOLVING D. CO. V. REVOLVING D. & F. CO. 745
In studying this second patent both as to structure and astto claims, it is
to be noted that there is no evidence of manufacture under nor utility of the
first patent (August 14, 1900). It will not be disputed that, in large centers
there has been an increase of great buildings housing thousands of people.
and that the mind of inventors would naturally turn to devising a door which
would be a practicable commercial structure from the point of view of archi-
tectural requirements and cost of construction, and at the same time would
possess emcient panic—proof features.
Looking at the structures of the iirst and second patents here concerned,
what was the accomplishment of the second over the first? In the iirst patent
each wing is provided with an independent, self-releasing locking device, and
the wings, in the event of panic, are released from the ceiling separately, in
order to hold the position shown in Figure 3 of the first patent. In the con-
struction of the second patent in suit, the arrangement of the self-releasing
locking device between the adjacent faces of the wings makes possible the
collapsing of the wings to panic position after the release of a single fasten-
ing. Aside from this advantage, the parts are in a position for ready read-
justment or the re—establishment of the door in operative position after col-
lapsing.
The releasing of one of the,straps or cords releases the wings, so that they
may all be folded to panic position, no matter f1·om what point of the door
structure the releasing force may be applied; and this also facilitates the
ready return to position of the three wings between which the connection has
not been broken in any one collapsing operation. This cannot be said of the
mode of operation of the first patent in suit, wherein each wing must be in-
dividually re-established to its radial position, which, while possible, would
probably be accomplished only by aid of a stepladder, in view of the connect-
ing means being positioned on the ceiling of the door.
Having noted the structural differences between No. 656,062 and No.
838,843, it becomes necessary next to read the claims, remembering, of course,
that we are considering a combination. Analyzcd even from the standpoint
of liberal construction, claims 1 and 2 merely show change of location of the
devices, in that there.are "flxtures connecting the adjacent side ot the wings"
(claim 1) or "ties attached to the adjacent sides of the wings." _
It seems to me that, in view of the disclosures of the August 14, 1900, pat-
ent, a man skilled in the art would naturally experiment to determine the lo-
cation of the devices, that the result attained would not be invention, but
merely the product of capable mechanical improvement, and that it will not do
to extend the control of this art to any such comprehensive scope as is sought
under these two claims.
Claims 13 and 14, however, state a combination of elements from which we
have, apparently, a new structure in commerce, a new result for operative
panic-proof doors, and all described with words of limitation sufficiently defi-
nite and limited to save the combination from all the prior art. Randall,
209,713, of 1878; Weaver, 319,532, of 1885; Van Kannel, 387,571, of 1888;
Ryan, 516,124, of 1894; Van Kannel, 588,620, of 1897; Ife, 595,948, of 1897;
Ife, 596,029, of 1897; Van Kannel, 641,563, of 1900; Van Kannel, 656,062 of
August 14, 1900.
Even if doubt existed as to claims 13 and 14, that doubt must be resolved
in favor of validity, in view of the presumption arising from the grant and
from the utility of the structure as established by the testimony.
In view of the conclusions indicated, complainant may have a decree in ac-
cordance herewith, with half costs.1
T. W. johnson, of Washington, D. C., for complainant.
C. G. Campbell, of New York City, for defendant.
Before LACOMBE, COXE, and WARD, Circuit judges. ,
V1 It will be noted that the motion to strike out the testimony as to "panic-
proof" was granted. In taxing disbursements, those incurred in connection
with the "panic-proof" testimony will be deducted, and the balance will con-
stitute the principal sum on which the half costs will be dgured.