Barclay v. Thayer
Opinion of the Court
This suit is brought on reissued letters patent granted to John Barclay, December 6th, 1870, for an “improvement in the manufacture of plated metal bracelets,” the original patent having
It is apparent, that the patentee’s invention has relation only to bracelets in which the fellow piece is soldered to the base plate. He specifies, as advantages of his arrangement, that the beads not only conceal the base metal, and stiffen and strengthen the base plate, but hide the solder, and enable it to effect a firmer union of the two plates. The patent granted to John S. Palmer, March 19th, 1861, for an “improvement in constructing bracelets, &c.,” and which is brought up as anticipating the invention of Barclay, sets forth, as a difficulty in constructing bracelets, that, when the fellow piece is soldered to the base plate, and the superfluous stock is trimmed from the latter, the baser metal thereof, when plated stock is used, will be exposed, and then states that Palmer turns over the edges of the base plate, so as to make an overlaying lip or slide on each edge of the outside of the bracelet. This turning over of the edges of the base plate leaves them with smooth round edges on the outside, and gives substantially the beads which Barclay has. But Palmer, instead of soldering a fellow piece to the base plate at the inside of the beads, slides bits of metal, with projecting lips, under the lips or slides of the base plate, and so makes his bracelet. This is a very different arrangement from that of Barclay. Palmer dispenses with solder, and uses two lips, with rivets passing through both of them. Barclay retains the use of solder. Palmer dispenses with a fellow piece in one piece, and substitutes therefor short bits of metal, each slid into place separately, and making, when arranged together, a fellow piece. Barclay retains the old fellow piece in one piece. It is of no consequence, that the defendant may so turn over the beads as to leave a space between them and the surface below, which space might be used for the insertion of a lip or slide. Such space is not so used by the defendant, and serves no purpose. The space which may be so left by the defendant is not used by the defendant for the purpose set forth by Palmer, and the defendant’s arrangement is none the less Barclay’s arrangement by reason of having such space, nor does such space cause the defendant’s arrangement to be that of Palmer. The defendant, to enable himself to construct a bracelet having a fellow piece in one piece, and to still use solder for the attachment together of the two plates, has availed himself of the invention of Barclay, and has not followed the invention of Palmer.
There must be a decree for the plaintiffs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.