ed more cheaply by using sulphuric acid, or other agents, instead of bromine Held, that the article produced by the sulphuric acid process was an infringement of the complainant's patent. Badische Anilin and Soda Fabrik v. Cummins,
54. The words "artificial alizarine" in the claim describe the product produced by the process, and do not necessarily mean chemically pure alizarine, and the claim is valid as being for a new article of manufacture. Id.
55. Reissued lettters patent No. 7,254, granted to George T. Flint, as assignee of Orange N. Hart, August 8th, 1876, for an improvement in hot air furnaces, held, to be for the same invention as that de- scribed in the original patent, No. 92,822, granted to the said Hart July 20th 1869. Flint v. Roberts.
56. The invention described and claimed in the reissue was not antici- pated. Id.
57. The defendants infringe by using the invention in connection with an improvement patented by another. Id.
58. While the complainant would not be permitted to use the improve- ment in connection with his invention, the defendants cannot use the complainant's invention in connection with their improvements. Id.
59. The letters patent granted to Eugene A. Heath, October 10th, 1871, for an "improvement in cuspadores,' are valid. United States Stamping Co. v. King.
60. The invention covered by the claim of the patent, defined. Id. 61. Although, in a prior suit on the patent, it had been held invalid, in view of a prior patent, this Court held it to be valid, and grant- ed a preliminary injunction on it, on a different state of facts. 62. The invention in the Heath patent, held to be patentable. Id.
INGALLS-NORTON-SHAVOR & CORSE-POST-OFFICE
63. The reissued letters patent, division A, No. 4,143, granted to Helen M. Ingalls, October 4th, 1870, for an improvement in post- office post-marking and cancelling hand-stamps (originally grant- ed to Marcus P. Norton, April 14th, 1863, and reissued to Jacob Shavor and Albert C. Corse, August 23d, 1864, and to said Nor- ton, August 3d, 1869), are valid. Campbell v. James.
64. The invention was made by Norton before May 4th, 1859. Id. 65. A letter from Norton, introduced in evidence by the defendant, is evidence for the plaintiff on those points which are in his favor. Id.
66. Letters patent, No. 50,591, granted to John H. Irwin, October 24th, 1865, for a lantern, the top or dome of which is hinged to the guard on one side, in such manner that it can be closed firmly to the guard, by the operation of a hinge, and a catch on the side op- posite the hinge, so that, when the top or dome is lifted or thrown back on the hinge, the globe can be removed from the guard, held valid. Adams v. Illinois Mfg. Co.
67. The first claim of the reissued letters patent No. 3,579, granted August 3d, 1869, to Nathaniel Jenkins, for an improvement in the manufacture of elastic packing," namely, "An elastic packing composed of at least four-tenths of finely pulverized refractory earthy or stony material, intimately mingled with, and held to- gether by, rubber prepared for vulcanizing, and then vulcanized, as and for the purpose described," includes only soft vulcanized rubber, and does not include hard rubber, or vulcanite, so called, made of rubber mingled with 25 per cent, or over, of sulphur, and then vulcanized. Clarke v. Johnson.
KING-BALE OF PLASTERERS' HAIR.
68. Letters patent granted to Wendell R. King, dated June 30th, 1874, numbered 152,560, held invalid. King v. Frostel.
69. Letters patent No. 191,244, granted to Hermon W. Ladd, May 29th, 1877, for an improvement in spring bed bottoms," held valid. Ladd v. Tucker Mfg. Co.
70. A patent for a spring bed bottom, the bars of which are composed of two or more thin bars of wood laid one upon another, and having their bolt holes sufficiently larger in diameter than the bolts or rivets which pass through them, to allow each bar or strip to bend or spring independently of that or those next to it, construed to include strips or bars of wood riveted together more or less tightly. Id.
71. The decision of the Supreme Court, in Littlefield v. Perry, 21 Wal- lace, 205, construed. Perry v. Littlefield.
72. The invention covered by the claim of the letters patent reissued to Dennis G. Littlefield, May 31st, 1870, for an "improvement in the mode of hinging covers to stoves, tea kettles and other open- topped vessels," on the surrender of the original letters patent granted to said Littlefield, March 13th, 1866, namely," A detacha- ble cover and its seat, respectively provided with a pin and an opening, so constructed as to engage or lock with each other, for the purpose of hinging and securing a cover upon an open-topped vessel, substantially as described," is an invention the exclusive right to which for the States of New York and Connecticut, as ap- plicable to stoves covered by the patents embraced in the assign- ment of April 5th, 1853, and in the supplemental agreement of the same date, referred to in Littlefield v. Perry, belongs to the plain- tiff, as against Littlefield and all persons claiming under him. Id. 624
73. The reissued letters patent No. 8,076, granted to James K. Lock- wood, February 5th, 1878, for improvement in circular saws (the original patent having been dated November 12, 1867, and num- bered 70,728), being for an invention different from the original patent, held void. Curtis v. Branch.
74. Upon the construction given by the court to the second claim of the patent granted to James W. Lyon, for improvement in pad- locks, dated April 22d, 1862, and numbered 35,030, the defend- ants held not to have infringed. Miller v. Smith.
75. Letters patent No. 76,646, granted to Wm. C. McGill, April 14th, 1868, for a conductor's register, construed, and upon the construc- tion given, and, in view of the state of the art, the defendants held not to have infringed the same. Railway Register Mfg. Co. v. High- land Street Railway Co.
76. A claim for "the combination of the ratchet wheel, pawl and lever, with or without the bell attachment, arranged and operating substantially as and for the purposes described”: Held, in view of the state of the art, not to cover the ratchet wheel, pawl and lever, used by the defendants, the arrangement of which was different, especially in the mode in which the lever was operated. Id.
MACDONALD-DRESS PROTECTOR.
77. Held, that the "fluted or plaited border" of the complainant's dress protector, for which letters patent No. 155,534 were granted to her September 29th, 1874, is not an essential part of the inven- tion. Macdonald v. Shepard.
78. The case of Macdonald v. Blackmer, ante p. 78, referred to.
79. Letters patent No. 134,690, granted to James Manning, January 7th, 1873, for an improvement in the manufacture of isinglass, held invalid. Manning v. Cape Ann Isinglass and Glue Co.
MARSHALL-WILSON-PACKING AND PRESERVING MEAT.
80. The patents granted to W. C. Marshall, July 12th, 1864, reissued May 25th, 1875, and to William J. Wilson, March 31st, 1874, re- issued April 6th, 1875, for processes of packing and preserving meat, held not to be for patentable inventions. Wilson Packing Co. v. Clapp.
MOFFITT-HEEL STIFFENERS OR COUNTERS FOR BOOTS
81. The invention patented to the complainant, May 21st, 1872, num- bered 127,090, for forming heel stiffeners or counters, by means of two rollers, is not infringed by a machine, for similar purposes, patented to Louis Coté, which operates with one roller working in a stationary mould. Moffitt v. Rogers.
82. The question of the patentability of defendant's invention, as affect- ed by the practicability of his machine when compared with the complainant's, considered.
MONCE-TOOL FOR CUTTING GLASS.
83. Letters patent No. 91,150, granted to Samuel G. Monce, June 8th, 1869, for a "Tool for Cutting Glass," held void for want of novel- ty, the invention having been in public use and on sale more than two years prior to his application for the patent. Monce v. Wood- worth.
84. Upon the construction given by the Court to letters patent No. 48.300 granted to E. D. Moyer, on June 20th, 1865, for an im- proved bottle-stopper, the defendants held not to have infringed. Hicks v. Möller.
NIEDRINGHAUS-ENAMELLED IRON-WARE.
85. The reissued patent No. 7,779, granted to Frederick G. Niedring- haus and William F. Niedringhous, July 3d, 1877, for improve- ment in the manufacture of enamelled iron-ware (the original patent having been dated May 30, 1876, and numbered 177,953) are valid. St. Louis Stamping Co. v. Quinby.
86. The reissued letters patent, No. 5,799, granted to the Giant Pow- der Company, March 17th, 1874, for 17 years from the 26th of May, 1868, for an "improved explosive compound" (the original patent having been granted to Julius Bandmann, as assignee of Alfred Nöbel, as inventor, as No. 78,317, May 26th, 1868), are valid. Atlantic Giant Powder Co. v. Rand.
87. The claim of the said patent, namely, "The combination of nitro- glycerine with infusorial earth, or other equivalent absorbent sub- stance, as a new explosive compound," is infringed by an explosive compound known as “rendrock powder," and containing, in 100 parts by weight, 34.71 parts of nitro-glycerine, 52.68 parts of nitrate of potash, 5.84 parts of sulphur and 6.77 parts of woody fibre, charcoal and resin, in nearly equal proportions. Id.
88. Said reissued patent is not for a different invention from the said original patent. Id.
89. The specifications of the original and the reissue examined and compared. Id.
90. The reissued letters patent No. 5,799, granted to the Giant Powder Company, March 17th, 1874, for an "improved explosive com- pound" (the original patent having been granted to Julius Band- mann, as assignee of Alfred Nobel, the inventor, as No. 78,317, May 26th, 1868), are valid. Atlantic Giant Powder Co. v. Parker. 91. The decision in Atlantic Giant Powder Co. v. Rand confirmed. Id.
92. The claim of that patent is infringed by a powder called "Neptune Powder," composed of 56 parts of nitrate of soda, 14 parts of char- coal, and 30 parts of nitro-glycerine. Id.
PHILLIPS-WOODEN PAVEMENTS.
93. Letters patent No. 121.544. granted to Robert C. Phillips, Decem- ber 5th, 1871, for improvement in wooden pavements, held void for want of novelty and invention. Phillips v. City of Detroit.
« ПретходнаНастави » |