Conceding the, to me, doubtful proposition of patentable advance in Krantz reissue over Kaiser (522,599, 1894), Wylie (714,629, 1902), and Edwards (1,153,204, 1915), I am of the view that appellee's two other patents sued on (Krantz, 1,900,750, 1933, and Sladky, 1,900,749, 1933), both subsequent to Krantz's reissue, and both found valid and infringed, do not show patentable advance over Krantz reissue. Sladky shows a doubling or folding of the inserting member for only the obvious purpose of stiffening the edge; and Krantz's second patent shows very much the same construction, one form having an edge flange for the same purpose, which flange, besides being obviously for the purpose of stiffening, was old in Krantz reissue, as well as in Kaiser. Rose (1,715,008, 1929) also shows (Fig. 9) the double thick inserting member.
To my mind the Sladky and Krantz second patents are invalid. But if in this crowded art they be allowed the precise construction they show, in my judgment they would not be infringed by Appellant's Exhibit 29. I believe that in any event the complaint should have been dismissed as to the Sladky and Krantz second patents.