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.
« iepriekšējāTurpināt » |