BEECHER MANUFACTURING COMPANY
v.
ATWATER MANUFACTURING COMPANY
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.
Beecher Manufacturing Company challenged a patent for dies used in manufacturing wagon king bolts, which the patentee claimed as a "series" of successive dies operating at different stages of production. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's injunction and damages award, holding that the patent was invalid because the two pairs of dies were not combined into a single machine or integrated process—they operated separately at different times and places with results that did not influence each other—and therefore did not constitute a patentable combination, and the reissue improperly reclaimed subject matter the original patent expressly disclaimed.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. JustiCe Gray delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an appeal from a decree for an injunction 'and damages for the infringement of a patent issued to Robert R. Miller, on February 22, 1870, and reissued to his assigns on May 6, 1879, for an improvement in dies for forming the clip arms of king bolts for wagons. 8 Fed. Rep. 608.
According to the description in the specification, such bolts are made by taking an iron rod of suitable length, splitting it for about two inches at one end, and turning the forks or arms' outwards; then heating the rod, placing the. body in a hole in a block or die grooved to receive the arms, and striking it with a plane-faced upper die, so as to force the arms into and make them take tbe shape of the grooves; and afterwards placing it between two other dies, which give the arms the proper bend to fit them to the. axle-tree of a wagon. With the subsequent shaping of the collar and stem of the bolt, this patent has nothing to do.
In the original patent, the patentee stated that he did not claim either of the dies separately, and claimed only “the series of dies ” (designating them by letters) “ for forming the clip arms and wings of the lower ends of king bolts / for wagons, said dies being constructed and operating ysubstan-tially as herein shown and described.” In the. reissue, he claimed, 1. The first pair of dies, “constructed'and combined substantially as and for the purpose shown.” 2. “ The series of dies ” (designated by letters) “ for forming clip king bolts, substantially as shown and described.”
The first claim .of the reissue is bad, not only because it was for something the patentee had expressly .disclaimed in the original patent* "but because, as the evidence clearly "shows, there was nothing new in the dies themselves.
The second claim of the reissúe, like the single claim of the original patent, for the use in succession, or, in the patentee’s phrase, “ the series,” of the two pairs of old dies -the one pair to shape the arms of the bolt, and the other to give those arms the requisite curve, does not' show any patentable invention. The two pairs of dies were not combined in one machine, and did not co-operate to one result. Each pair was used by itself, and might be so used at any distance of time ór place from the other; and if the two were used at the same place, and in immediate succession of time, the -result of the action of each was separate and distinct, and was in no way influenced or affected by the action of the other. This was no combination that would sustain a patent. Hailes v. Van Wormer, 20 Wall. 358; Pickering v. McCullough, 104 U. S. 310; Stephenson v. Brooklyn Railroad, ante, 149.
Decree reversed and case remcmded with (directions to dismiss the MU.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Autogiro Co. of Am. v. The United States, 384 F.2d 391 (Ct. Cl. 1967)…mmon result. The systems need not mechanically interact with one another. They need only act together for the same result; that is to say, they must be part of the same unit which serves a single purpose. E. g., Beecher Mfg. Co. v. Atwater Mfg. Co., 114 U.S. 523, 5 S.Ct. 1007, 29 L.Ed. 232 (1885); Sachs v. Hartford Electric Supply Co., 47 F. 2d 743 (2d Cir. 1931); Application of Worrest, 201 F. 2d 930, 40 CCPA 804 (1953); Vollink v. Holland Celery Planter Co., supra. The cyclic and collective pitch control…
-
Florsheim v. Schilling, 137 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1890)…2 U. S. 347; Tack Co. v. Two Rivers Manufacturing Co., 109 U. S. 117; Bussey v. Excelsior Manufacturing Co., 110 U. S. 131; Phillips v. Detroit, 111 U. S. 604; Stephenson v. Brooklyn Railroad Co., 114 U. S. 149; Beecher Mfg. Co. v. Atwater Mfg. Co., 114 U. S. 523; Thatcher Heating Co. v. Burtis, 121 U. S. 286; Hendy v. Miners' Iron Works, 127 U. S. 370. In the light of these authorities, our judgment is that the appellants’ patent No. 238,100 was for a corset that had been in long and publicly known use, ea…
-
Thatcher Heating Co. v. Burtis, 121 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1887)…754; Pennsylvania Railroad v. Locomotive Truck Co., 110 U. S. 490; Morris v. McMillin, 112 U. S. 244; Hollister v. Benedict Manufacturing Co., 113 U. S. 59; Thompson v. Boisselier, 114 U. S. 1; Beecher Manufacturing Co. v. Atwater Manufacturing Co., 114 U. S. 523; Gardner v. Herz, 118 U. S. 180. • There is no escape, we think, from the conclusions reached by the Circuit Court. Its decree is, therefore, Affrm.ed.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pickering v. McCullough, 104 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1881)