Beecher Manufacturing Co. v. Atwater Manufacturing Co.
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision.
- Autogiro Company of America v. The United States (Court of Claims 1967)
- Bauer Bros. Co. v. Bogalusa Paper Co. (5th Cir. 1938)
- W. A. Baum & Co. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co. (District Court, D. New Jersey 1937)
- Gray v. Texas Co. (8th Cir. 1935)
- Link-Belt Co. v. Quaker Oats Co. (8th Cir. 1930)
- Handel Co. v. Jefferson Glass Co. (District Court, N.D. West Virginia 1920)
- Elliott Mach. Co. v. Rothschild (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1915)
- Gas Machinery Co. v. United Gas Improvement Co. (6th Cir. 1915)
- Portland Gold Mining Co. v. Hermann (8th Cir. 1908)
- American Chocolate Machinery Co. v. Helmstetter (2d Cir. 1905)
- Consolidated Fastener Co. v. Columbian Fastener Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York 1897)
- Von Schmidt v. Bowers (9th Cir. 1897)
- Bowers v. Von Schmidt (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California 1894)
- Brickill v. City of Hartford (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut 1892)
- Johnson Co. v. Pacific Rolling-Mills Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California 1891)
- Florsheim v. Schilling (Supreme Court of the United States 1890)
- National Progress Bunching-Machine Co. v. John R. Williams Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York 1890)
- Thatcher Heating Co. v. Burtis (Supreme Court of the United States 1887)
- Gunn v. Savage (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut 1885)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
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 *524 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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.