King v. Gallun
Citation | 109 U.S. 99,3 S.Ct. 85,27 L.Ed. 870 |
Parties | KING v. GALLUN and another |
Decision Date | 29 October 1883 |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
This was a bill in equity brought by Wendell R. King, the appellant, against August Gallun and Albert Trostel, to restrain them from infringing letters patent No. 152,500, dated June 30, 1874, granted to the appellant for certain improvements in baled plastering hair.
The invention and its advantages are thus set forth in the specification:
'The bale, after being compressed, is tied in the usual way, and is then in shape for transporation without further covering, although it may be desirable, if the bale is to be sent a long distance, to envelop it in a stout sacking Hair baled thus may be separated by the retail dealer into bushel packages, each of which remains compressed into a small size, and is in convenient condition to handle.'
The claim was as follows:
'Having thus described my invention, I claim as an article of manufacture the bale B, of plasterers' hair, consisting of several bundles, A, containing a bushel each by weight, inclosed or incased in paper bags or similar material, and united, compressed, and secured to form a package, substantially as specified.'
The defense was want of novelty in the alleged invention, and that the same was not patentable.
The circuit court dismissed the bill, and from its decree the complainant has appealed.
L. L. Coburn, for appellant.
Joshua Stark, for appellees.
We are of opinion that the patent of complainant does not describe a patentable invention. The claim is for an article of manufacture, to-wit, a bale of plasterers' hair consisting of several bundles inclosed in bags, and compressed and secured to form a package. It is evident that the patent does not cover any improvement in the quality of the hair. Its qualities are unchanged. It does not cover the packing of the hair into parcels, or the size, shape, or weight of the parcels, nor the compression of the parcels separately. Nor does it cover the material of the bags which constitute the outer covering of the parcels. Complainant claims none of these things as secured by his patent. The packing of hair and other articles in parcels of the same shape, size, and weight, and the compression of the several parcels, has from time immemorial been in common use. Neither does complainant contend that his patent covers a single parcel or package of hair. All, therefore, that the patent can cover is simply an article of manufacture resulting from the compression and tying together in one bale of several similar parcels or packages of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. American Bell Tel. Co.
...far as they are displaced by specific allegations in the bill. Brown v. Piper, 91 U.S. 42; Terhune v. Phillips, 99 U.S. 592; King v. Gallun, 109 U.S. 99, 3 S.Ct. 85. grant of the patent is an adjudication which binds the United States as any other adjudication. Butterworth v. U.S., 112 U.S.......
-
Standard Fireproofing Co. v. St. Louis Expanded Metal Fireproofing Co.
... ... Chase Elevator Co., 158 U.S. 299; Heaton Co. v ... Schlochtmeyer, 69 F. 592; N. Y. Belting Co. v. N ... J., etc., Co., 137 U.S. 445; King v. Gallun, ... 109 U.S. 99; Terhune v. Phillips, 9 Otto 592; ... Root v. Sontag, 47 F. 309; Wall v. Leck, 61 ... F. 291; Buckingham v ... ...
-
Graney v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company
...of the scientific facts involved to determine whether the theory advanced can be sustained. Terhune v. Phillips, 99 U.S. 592; King v. Gallan, 109 U.S. 99; Underhill Evidence, 366 and 371; Gas Light Co. v. Ins. Co., 33 Mo.App. 348; 1 Greenleaf on Evidence [15 Ed.], sec. 5. (5) The contributo......
-
Friend v. Burnham & Morrill Co.
...invention, the court is not required to shut its eyes to matters of common knowledge or of things in common use. King v. Gallun, 109 U. S. 99, 101, 3 S. Ct. 85, 27 L. Ed. 870. The court may take into consideration common or general knowledge tending to show that the device or process descri......