BURNS
v.
MEYER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
John J. Grimsley and John Shelly held a patent for a side-saddle tree manufactured with separately constructed side-bars and seat that were then united together, while Orlando Y. Flora's competing patent utilized steamed and bent wood strips attached as integral parts of the tree with the seat stretched over them. The Supreme Court held that Flora's design did not infringe Grimsley and Shelly's patent because it did not employ the patented method of separate construction and subsequent unification, establishing that patent claims must be interpreted according to their fair terms as admitted by the Patent Office without judicial enlargement.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Bradley delivered the opinion of the court.
The only question in this case is, whether the defendants infringe certain letters-patent. (No. 97,236) granted 23d of November, 1869, to John J. Grimsley and John Shelly, for an improved side-saddle tre.e alleged to. have been invented by Shelly; which letters were afterwards assigned to the com-: plainants. .
The infringement alleged consists in making and using sidesaddle trees according to a plan described in another patent granted to Orlando Y. Flora, on the 9th of May, 1876, numbered 177,233. According to the complainants’ patent, this tree, composed of side-bars, cantle behind, and crook before, is first made, and the seat is constructed separately on a properly shaped rim, and is then fastened to the tree by screws, resting on the crook in front, and on supports attached to the side-bars in the middle and at the rear. This construction is claimed to simplify and cheapen the manufacture, and leave a space for air under the seat. . The claim of the patent is as follows: —
“ What I claim as my invention, and desire to secure by letters-patent is —
“ As a new article of manufacture, a side-saddle tree, having the side-bars and seat made separate and then united, substantially as and for the purpose shown and specified.”
The defendants’ side-saddle tree, constructed according to Mora’s patent, which is alleged to be an infringement, does not have “ the side-bars and seat made separate and then united.” On the contrary, tough strips of wood, steamed and bent to a proper shape, are attached to the tree, as a part thereof, forming side-rails for the seat; that on the right or off side extending from the cantle to the crook, and that on the left or near side extending from the cantle to a point on the near side-bai some distance back of the crook. The seat is stretched ovei these strips or side-rails. It is obvious that the seat, in this case, cannot possibly be constructed separately from the side-fears. They must be united in one construction, forming a complete tree. The advantage of separate construction which the plaintiffs claim for their patented tree is not attained by that of Flora. It is true that room is left for the admission of air under the seat; but that by itself is not claimed as the invention of Shelly.
It is well known that the terms of the claim in letters-patent are carefully scrutinized in the Patent Office. Over this part. of the specification the chief contest generally arises. It defines what the office, after a full examination of previous mventions and the state of the art, determines the applicant is entitled to. The courts, therefore, should be careful not to enlarge, by construction, the claim which the Patent Office has admitted, and which the patentee has acquiesced in, beyond the fair interpretation of its terms.
We think there was no infringement.
Decree affirmed[...]
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1966)…stated object of the invention was to provide a battery rendered serviceable by the mere addition of water. While the claims of a [*49] patent limit the invention, and specifications cannot be utilized to expand the patent monopoly, Burns v. Meyer, 100 U. S. 671, 672 (1880); McCarty v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 160 U. S. 110, 116 (1895), it is fundamental that claims are to be construed in the light of the specifications and both are to be'read with a view to ascertaining the invention, Seymour v. Osborne, 11 W…
-
McCLAIN v. Ortmayer, 141 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1891)…[*425] covers. If at one time he insists on too much, and at another on toó little, he does not thereby work any prejudice to the rights actually secured to him.” Other cases to. the same effect are Merrill v. Yeomans, 94 U. S. 568; Burns v. Meyer, 100 U. S. 671; and Sutter v. Robinson, 119 U. S. 530. It is true that, in a case of doubt, where the claim is fairly susceptible of two constructions, that one will be adopted’ which will preserve to the patentee his actual invention ; -but if the language of th…
-
Coupe v. Royer, 155 U.S. 565 (U.S. 1895)…plications are referred. ' When the terms of a claim in a patent are clear and distinct, (as they should always be,) the patentee, in a suit brought upon the patent, is bound by it. . . . He can claim nothing beyond it.” [*577] So in Burns v. Meyer, 100 U. S. 671, 672, it was said: “ The' courts should be careful not to enlarge by construction the claims which the Patent Office has admitted, and which the patentee has acquiesced in, beyond the fair interpretation of its terms.” And in McClain v. Ortmayer, 14…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence