PARTICULAR PATENTS—Continued.
ALLEN-Seat for Public Halls.
2. Reissued Patent No. 21, to Aaron H. Allen, January 15, 1861, for improvements
in seats for public halls, declared valid. The seats in the original patent were
to be turned up by weights, while in the reissue the weights may be dispensed
with and the seats moved up otherwise: Held, that the reissue is not for an
invention different from that contained in the original patent Although the
stove-door, carriage-seat for a child, and opera-board to a carriage, relied upon
in defense, are turned down, stopped, and held and turned up out of the way,
as are these seats, such contrivances are not anticipations of this invention;
since they could not be arranged as seats in public halls without additions
and alteration requiring the exercise of invention. * Allen v. City of New
York, 481.
BABCOCK-Window-Sash Holder.
3. Letters patent granted to Franklin Babcock, September 29, 1868, for an im-
proved window-sash holder, construed and sustained. * Babcock et al. v. Judd
et al., 504.
4. Reissued Letters Patent No. 4,026, granted to Hosea Ball, June 14, 1870, for an
improvement in ovens, declared to be invalid, it being for a different invention
from that covered by the orignal patent. Ball et al. v. Langles et al., 687.
BELT AND PERKINS-Metallic Covering for Buildings.
5. The patent granted to Belt and Perkins, May 30, 1876, No. 177,986, for improve-
ments in metallic coverings for buildings, declared to be invalid in view of the
state of the art. *Belt v. Crittenden et al., 569.
6. The invention embraced in patent to E. Blackman, February 6, 1872, No. 123,325,
is a lamp-chimney with the top or upper portion constructed of mica, and a
glass base, the two being united and designed to be used together as a unit,
and the Reissue No. 7,417, December 5, 1876, describing and claiming the base
separately, is invalid, as being for a different invention. *Blackman et al. v.
Hibbler et al., 234.
BRICKILL-Feed- Water Heater.
7. Letters Patent No. 81,132, granted August 18, 1868, to William A. Brickill, for
improvement in feed-water heaters for steam fire-engines, construed and sus-
tained. * Brickill et al. v. City of New York, 605.
8. Letters Patent No. 10,497, granted to George D. Burton. February 19, 1878, for
a design for a street-lamp, declared invalid. * Burton v. The Town of Green-
ville, 602.
BUSSEY et al.-Cooking-Stove.
9. The patent to Esek Bussey and C. A. McLeod, No. 180,001, July 18, 1876, for
improvement in cooking-stoves, construed in the light of the art, if sustainable
at all, does not cover all methods of raising the shelf by means of closing the
oven-door, but only the particular method (means) described. The cam being
old, the use of a swinging door as a lever being old, and the shelf being old, it
might be a question whether there was a sufficient degree of invention in
bringing these old elements to bear on the hinged shelf to make it patentable.
Bridge, Beach & Co. v. The Excelsior Manufacturing Company, 262.
PARTICULAR PATENTS-Continued.
10. The invention covered by Reissue No. 7,077, to E. J. Caldwell, is so restricted
by the state of the art as to embrace and be infringed by only the exact struct-
ure claimed and described. *Tifft v. Sharp et al., 487.
11. The annular series of perforations are more numerous in the patented device than
in others; but to make them thicker, if they were needed thicker, was mere
workmanship, not invention. * Id.
12. Reissue No. 5,804, granted to John Christman, March 24, 1874, for an improve-
ment in pump-filters, does not contain new matter, and as to the first claim is
valid. * Christman et al. v. Rumsey et al., 388.
13. The original patent claimed the entire combination, and the reissue sub-combi-
nations which enter into such general and larger combination: Held, that the
reissue was for things contained within the apparatus described in the original
patent, on the authority of Brown v. Guild (23 Wall., 181) and Herring v. Nel-
son (14 Blatchf., 293) as against Gill v. Wells (22 Wall., 1) and Russell v. Dodge,
(3 Otto, 460.)
* Id.
14. Although the second claim of the patent is invalid for want of novelty, the
plaintiffs can recover on the first claim, although no disclaimer had been made
to the second claim, provided that prior to the entry of a decree as to the first
claim a disclaimer is entered as to the second claim, there not appearing to
have been unreasonable neglect or delay; but he will not be entitled to costs.
*Id.
15. The Codd bottle-stopper, consisting of a glass marble inside of a bottle seating
against a rubber seat in the mouth of the bottle by the pressure of gases
from within, is not an infringement of the Albertson patents for a gravitating
stopper consisting of a stem with a rubber valve or skirt around it, which seats
on the interior of the neck of the bottle. * Matthews v. Schoneberger et al., 697.
COLLENDER-Billiard-Table.
16. Reissued Letters Patent No. 6,469, granted to H. W. Collender, June 1, 1875, for an
improvement in billiard-tables, declared invalid in view of evidence showing
the existence in this country of similar tables many years prior to the date of
the patent. * Collender v. Griffith et al., 578.
17. A billiard-table having the broad side-rails made of beveled or inclined planes
shows sufficient utility and advantage in the way of cheapness of construction,
as compared with a table having sides of curved or ogee form, to support a
patent. *Id.
18. Patent No. 221,721 held not to infringe Patent No. 220,126, the mode of operation
and the combination of parts in the two being substantially different.
* White
v. Noyes et al., 631.
19. Reissued Patent No. 5,774 to Shubael Cottle, February 24, 1874, for improvement
in chains for necklaces, declared void, the first claim, if not for want of nov.
elty, for want of patentability, and the second for want of novelty. *Pear ce
v. Mulford et al., 667.
20. Neither the tubing, nor the open spiral link formed of tubing, nor the process
of making either the open or the closed link, nor the junction of closed and
open spiral links in a chain, was invented by the patentee. *Id.
PARTICULAR PATENTS-Continued.
21. That portion of the specification of Reissued Letters Patent No. 4,777, granted
to E. T. Covell, March 5, 1872, for improvements in machines for closing the
seams of cans, which covers machines having recesses in the angles of the jaws
to act on can-corners that are not notched, is a substantial departure from
anything found in the original patent, and should the third claim of the re-
issue be construed to cover such construction it would be invalid. *Covell v
Pratt et al.,
589.
22. The application of rivets to pockets for uniting and closing the end of the seam
at the corners, as claimed in Reissued Patent No. 6,335, dated March 16, 1875,
involves invention, is not a mere double use or aggregation, and is patentable.
*Strauss et al. v. King et al., 527.
DE FOREST-Binding for Skirts.
23. Letters Patent No. 61,172, to Thomas B. De Forest, dated January 15, 1867, con-
strued and sustained. *Day v. Combination Rubber Company et al., 494.
DOWNTON-Manufacturing Flour.
24. The patent to Downton does not embrace the use of rolls at every stage of the
process, that being old, but for the interjection of rolls between the first and
second grindings, whereby the germ or embryonic part of the berry and also
the pellicle are flattened by a crushing instead of a grinding action. *Down-
ton v. Yaeger Milling Company, 396.
EAGLETON-Furniture-Spring.
25. Patent No. 122,001, dated December 19, 1871, issued to J. Joseph Eagleton,
Sarah N. Eagleton, administratrix, for an improvement in japanned furniture-
springs, granted upon such an application, never had a valid existence. *The
Eagleton Manufacturing Company v. The West, Bradley & Cary Manufacturing
Company et al., 532.
26. Reissued Letters Patent No. 7,704, dated May 29, 1877, for an improvement in
bedstead-frames, declared to be for the invention embraced in the original
patent granted November 30, 1869, and claims 1 and 2 thereof construed, in
view of the prior state of the art, and sustained. *Whittlesey et al. v. Ames et
al.,
593.
27. Patent No. 155,077, granted to J. F. Field, September 15, 1874, for improvement
in glove-fastenings, does not cover broadly the use of springs to close the wrist
of gloves, but only his style of spring. *Field v. De Comean et al., 307.
28. The patent is for a spring shaped to hold together the parts of the wrist of the
glove, and is not infringed by a device consisting of two stiff arms, with a
spring on one operating on the cam-shaped end of the other to hold them tight
when closed a certain distance. *Id.
29. Claims 1, 2, and 4 of reissued letters patent granted to William H. Field, Novem-
ber 5, 1878, for an improvement in horse hay-rakes, held to be substantially
anticipated by the patent granted H. W. Sabin, December 3, 1850. Wiener v.
Grant et al., 573.
PARTICULAR PATENTS-Continued.
FRANZ AND POPE-Knitting-Machine.
30. Letters Patent No. 99,426, dated February 1, 1870, granted to William Franz
and William Pope, and Reissue Patent No. 7,368, dated January 20, 1868,
granted to Thomas Crane for improvements in knitting-machines, found to be
valid. *The Franz & Pope Knitting-Machine Company v. Bickford, 623.
31. Claim 1 of Reissue No. 6,824, granted Horatio Gale, December 28, 1875, for im-
provement in plow-jointers, construed and sustained. *The Gale Manufactur-
ing Company v. Prutzman et al., 360.
32. The claim involves the combination of a standard of a plow with the horizon-
tally-projecting and curved arm carrying a jointer and a vertical adjustment
to regulate depth of cut of the jointer. Infringement found where combination
entire was used with barely one difference-viz., the points at which vertical
adjustment was made being changed from the standard to the lower end of
the projecting arm. *Id.
33. Letters Patent No. 119,705, granted to Eugene A. Heath, October 10, 1871, for
an improvement in cuspidors, construed and sustained. *The United States
Stamping Company v. King et al., 507.
34. Patent to E. A. Heath, No. 119,705, granted October 10, 1871, not anticipated by
invention of Weber, the proofs failing to show beyond a reasonable doubt that
Weber was prior to Heath. †United States Stamping Company v. Jewett et al., 704.
35. The third claim of the patent granted March 16, 1869, to Richard M. Hoe, as
assignee of Auguste H. Marinoni, declared to be for a patentable combination
and sustained. Hoe et al. v. Cottrell et al., 543.
36. The reissued Letters Patent No. 4,143 (Division A), granted to Helen M. Ingalls,
October 4, 1870, for an improvement in post-marking and canceling stamp, the
original patent having been granted to Marcus P. Norton, April 14, 1863, and
reissued to Jacob Shavor and A. C. Corse, August 23, 1864, and reissued to M.
P. Norton, August 3, 1869, declared valid. "Campbell v. James et al., 633.
37. The claim in Patent No. 179,316, dated June 27, 1876, for improved methods of
making colored photographs on glass, being found to be dual as to subject-
matter and as to the first process anticipated, judgment was rendered in favor
of the complainant as to the second process described therein. *Irish v.
Knapp, 624.
38. Letters Patent No. 50,591, granted October 24, 1865, to J. H. Irwin for improve-
ments in lanterns, construed, in view of the prior state of the art, and sustained.
* Adams v. Illinois Manufacturing Company, 604.
PARTICULAR PATENTS-Continued.
39. The first claim in Reissued Patent No. 3,579, to N. Jenkins, August 3, 1869, for
"an elastic packing composed of at least four-tenths of finely-pulverized re-
fractory earthy or stony material intimately mingled with and held together
by rubber prepared for vulcanizing and then vulcanized, as and for the pur-
pose described," restricted in view of the specification to a packing in which
the rubber is prepared for vulcanizing by using less than twenty-five per cent.
of sulphur. Clarke v. Johnson, 513.
40. Such claim will not cover a packing in which vulcanite (rubber mingled with
twenty-five per cent. or over of sulphur and then vulcanized) is substituted
for the soft rubber (rubber mingled with less than twenty-five per cent. of
sulphur), as the two products are substantially different. *Id.
41. Reissued Letters Patent No 3,579, granted to Nathaniel Jenkins, August 3, 1869,
construed to be for elastic packing composed of four-tenths refractory earthy
or stony matter mixed with rubber prepared for vulcanization by using less
than twenty-five per cent. of sulphur, and then vulcanized, whence results a
material composed of forty per cent. and over of refractory matter held together
by a skeleton of soft rubber. *Clarke v. Johnson, 673.
42. The patent is not infringed by valve-seat disks containing sulphur in excess of
the above proportion, whereby vulcanite is formed when the compound is sub-
ject to a vulcanizing heat. *Id.
KELLY-Burner for Gas-Stores.
43. Substantially the same combination of devices, although of different form and
capacity, having been used before the patentee's invention, he is entitled only
to his particular form of devices which are really different, and the combina-
tion of those devices with each other or with others so as to produce a new
result or an old result in a new way. *Sharp v. Tifft, 483.
44. Patent No. 53,630, granted April 3, 1865, to E. Y. Kneeland, for improvements
in pistons for deep-well pumps, sustained. Kneeland et al. v. Sheriff et al., 583.
45. Reissue No. 4,006, May 31, 1870, of Patent No. 53,251, March 13, 1855, and Re-
issue No. 1,823, November 22, 1834, of Patent No. 10,448, of January 24, 1854,
to Dennis G. Littlefield, are for improvements upon Patent No. 8,047, of April
15, 1851, to said Littlefield, and are included in an assignment conveying an
exclusive license under said patent of 1851 and improvements thereon. *Perry
v. Littlefield et al., 217.
46. The queston before the supreme court of the District of Columbia, in the case
in which they allowed Letters Patent No. 115,225, May 23, 1871, to James R.
McClintock, for an improvement in bale-ties, was not whether the application
on which those letters patent were granted contained all that had appeared in
a prior application, but whether the prior application contained all that ap-
peared in the later application, so that the invention could be carried back
over any intermediate obstacles of public use or knowledge to the earlier ap-
plication; and their decision did not have the effect to incorporate the earlier
into the later application. Ex parte McClintock, 41.
|