Singer Manufacturing Company v. Herman Cramer

Decision Date01 February 1904
Docket NumberNo. 18,18
Citation192 U.S. 265,24 S.Ct. 291,48 L.Ed. 437
PartiesSINGER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Petitioner , v. HERMAN CRAMER
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

This controversy relates to an alleged infringement by the petitioner, a New Jersey corporation, of United States letters patent No. 271,426, issued to the respondent on January 30, 1883, for 'a new and improved sewing-machine treadle.' For convenience the petitioner will be hereafter referred to as the Singer Company and the respondent as Cramer.

The treadle device used by the Singer company on its sewing machines, which it was charged infringed the Cramer patent, was covered by letters patent No. 306,469, dated October 14, 1884, issued to the Singer company as the assignee of one Diehl.

The file wrapper and contents exhibit the following proceedings in the Patent Office respecting the Cramer patent: The original application was filed on May 25, 1882, and was for the grant of letters patent to Cramer 'as the inventor for the invention set forth in the annexed specification.' The specification and oath thereto read as follows:

'I, Herman Cramer, of the city of Sonora, in Tuolumne county, in the state of California, have invented certain improvements in a treadle, to be used in sewing machines, or other machinery where a noiseless treadle may be required, of which the following is a specification:

'My invention consists of the usual platform marked 'A' in Fig. 1 of diagram on treadle bar. The ends of said treadle bar, marked 'B,' are shaped like the letter V, and rest in socket in lower end of a brace 'C,' the socket being

[NOTE: MATERIAL SET AT THIS POINT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE (GRAPHIC OR TABULAR MATERIAL)]

shaped, the brace 'C' cast in one piece, and the treadle bar and platform on the bar is also cast in one piece.

'The treadle bar rests in socket in brace 'C,' which is immediately above a cross brace usually in machines to keep them from spreading apart, the nut on end of cross brace is marked 'D.' Letter 'M' immediately beneath cross brace and treadle bar is an oil receiver to retain any drippings of oil from the bearings of treadle bar.

'My invention consists in having the ends of the treadle bar V-shaped to fit in hole in brace 'C,' also

[NOTE: MATERIAL SET AT THIS POINT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE (GRAPHIC OR TABULAR MATERIAL)]

shaped to receive the ends of the treadle bar.

'This V-shaped treadle bar in brace 'C' entirely prevents noise from the treadle, is self-adjusting, and does away with the necessity of cones and set screws now in use. This I claim as my invention. Fig. 1 represents platform 'A' and treadle bar, the ends of which are V-shaped and marked 'B.'

'Fig. 2 represents the lower end of brace 'C' with hole

[NOTE: MATERIAL SET AT THIS POINT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE (GRAPHIC OR TABULAR MATERIAL)]

shaped to receive the ends of treadle bar 'B.' 'D' represents nut on end of cross brace immediately below treadle bar. 'State of California, County of Tuolumne.

'Herman Cramer, the above-named petitioner, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he verily believes himself to be the original and first inventor of the improvement in a noiseless self-adjusting treadle described in the foregoing specification, that he does not know and does not believe that the same was ever before known or used, and that he is a citizen of the United States.'

The application was referred to the examiner, who, on May 29, 1882, wrote to Cramer, in care of his attorneys, as follows:

'The application is not prepared in conformity with the rules of the office. The specification is written on both sides of the pages, while the rules direct that it should be written on one side of each page only.

'No claim is appended to the specification. The oath is incomplete, as § 39 of the rules requires applicants to state under the oath if the invention has been patented to them, or with their knowledge and consent to others in any foreign country, and, if so, the number, date, and place of such patent or patents. Reference is made to the patent to G. W. Gregory, No. 256,563, April 18, 1882, which exhibits the alleged invention.'

On August 3, 1882, the following substitute specification, concluding with an oath similar to that appended to the prior specification, was sent to the Patent Office:

'I, Herman Cramer, of the city of Sonora, in Tuolumne county, in the state of California, have invented certain improvements in a treadle and brace, to be used in sewing machines or other machinery where a noiseless treadle may be required, of which the following is a specification:

'My invention consists in a combination of the usual platform marked 'A,' in Fig. 1 of diagram on treadle bar. The ends of said treadle bar marked 'B' are to bear against mufflers.

'The treadle bar bearings are in and on brace 'C.' The treadle bar rests in socket in brace 'C,' which is immediately above a cross bar usually in machines to keep them from spreading apart.

'The nut on end of cross bar is marked 'D.' Letter 'M,' immediately beneath cross bar, and treadle bar, is an oil receiver to retain any drippings of oil from the bearings of treadle bar.

'The treadle bar, mufflers, and brace 'C' are held between the right and left legs of the machine by means of a brace bar underneath the treadle bar.

'This brace and socket or bearing in or on brace is in one piece.

'The treadle bar with mufflers on the ends, working or bearing in or on brace, entirely prevents noise from the treadle, is self-adjusting, and does away with the necessity for cones and set screws now in use.

'Fig. 1 represents platform 'A' and treadle bar, the ends of which may be V-shaped, or any shape to suit, marked 'B.'

'Fig. 2 represents the lower end of brace 'C.'

"D' represents nut on end of cross bar immediately below the treadle bar.

'What I claim is a combination of brace 'C' with socket or bearing in it or on it, to receive the treadle bar with the mufflers at the ends of treadle bar or in or on brace 'C' in connection with said brace 'C,' and the treadle bar in connection with brace 'C,' and mufflers to work in or on brace 'C,' substantially as set forth.'

On August 14, 1882, the examiner wrote Cramer, in care of his attorneys, as follows:

'Applicant's amended claims are met by the patent to J. E. Donovan, June 28, 1881, No. 243,529, in view of which a patent is again refused.'

Following this rejection there was filed a revocation of the power of attorney which had been executed by Cramer in favor of the attorneys who had theretofore conducted the proceedings, and an appointment of other attorneys for the further prosecution of the application. On October 17, 1882, the substituted attorneys sent to the Patent Office a new drawing and an amendment of the specification on file, which amendment consisted in canceling all the specification except the signature and substituting for the matter so stricken out the following:

'Be it known that I, Herman Cramer, of Sonora, in the county of Tuolumne and state of California, have invented a new and improved sewing-machine treadle; and I do hereby declare that the following is a full, clear, and exact description of the same, reference being had to the accompanying drawing, forming part of this specification.

'My invention relates to improvements in the bearings of sewing-machine treadles, and it has for its object to provide means, first, to keep the treadle bearings rigidly in line and at a fixed distance apart to avoid friction, and second, to make its movement in use noiseless. To this end my invention consists in the construction and combination of parts hereinafter fully described and claimed, reference being had to the accompanying drawings in which——

'Fig. 1 is a perspective view of a portion of a sewing machine showing my invention.

'Fig. 2 is a transverse vertical section through one bearing of the treadle.

'A represents the treadle provided with the usual pitman connection by which to run the sewing-machine wheel. B represents the two trunnions cast as a portion of the treadle and extending from its sides into loopholes in the common cast-iron cross brace C. These trunnions are sharpened to an edge or corner along their lower sides, and the lower end of the loophole is hollowed to an angle more obtuse than the edge of the trunnion, to serve as a bearing for the same and permit the rocking motion common to treadles.

'C represents the usual cast-iron double brace connecting the two end legs diagonally in a plane generally vertical. The lower ends of this brace are secured directly to the web of the legs by bolts d, and for convenience and strength I make the two ends of the common cross bar D serve as these bolts. The upper ends of the brace are secured as usual, either to the web of the legs or to the table of the machine near the legs.

'The treadle and its trunnion bearings are wholly independent of the cross bar D, except its service as stated, to hold the brace to the legs. The bearing holes in the brace are formed into long vertical loops to permit the entrance of the treadle.

'Pieces of leather F, or other soft material, cover the top and end of each trunnion to serve as cushions to keep the same close in its bearing, to prevent the noise which would result were the trunnions permitted to bounce and thump endways, when the treadle is in motion. The leather F is fitted to the curve of the upper side of the trunnion, which is an arc of a cylinder, whose center of oscillation is the lower edge of the trunnion; the same leather also interposes between the end of the trunnion and the adjacent iron. f is a block serving as a mere backer to which the cushion F is attached. This block conforms to the back and top side of the cushion and fills the loophole in the brace above the trunnion. It also has tangs or projections e, resting in suitable recesses in the brace C, which are held between the brace and the web of the leg E, by which means the block and cushion are held...

To continue reading

Request your trial
89 cases
  • Duplan Corporation v. Deering Milliken, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • November 14, 1973
    ...of fact to be passed upon by a jury. Heald v. Rice, 104 U.S. 737, 749, 26 L.Ed. 910, 914 (1882); Singer Mfg. Co. v. Cramer, 192 U.S. 265, 275, 24 S.Ct. 291, 48 L.Ed. 437, 443-444 (1904); Sanitary Refrigerator Co., supra, 280 U.S., at 36, 50 S.Ct. 9, 74 L.Ed., at 153; United States v. Esnaul......
  • Delco Chemicals v. Cee-Bee Chemical Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • December 11, 1957
    ...L. Ed. 625; see Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. Winters, 1929, 280 U.S. 30, 36, 50 S. Ct. 9, 74 L.Ed. 147; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Cramer, 1904, 192 U.S. 265, 275, 24 S.Ct. 291, 48 L.Ed. 437; Black Diamond Coal-Mining Co. v. Excelsior Coal Co., 1895, 156 U.S. 611, 618, 15 S.Ct. 482, 39 L.Ed. 553; M......
  • Autogiro Company of America v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • October 13, 1967
    ...Zenith Radio Corp. v. Lehman, 121 F. Supp. 69 (S.D.N.Y.1954), aff'd 217 F.2d 954 (2d Cir. 1955). 13 E.g., Singer Mfg. Co. v. Cramer, 192 U.S. 265, 24 S.Ct. 291, 48 L.Ed. 437 (1904); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., supra; Perry v. United States, supra; Independent Pneumatic......
  • Williams Mfg Co v. United Shoe Machinery Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 25, 1942
    ...the question of patentability should be reviewed. Heald v. Rice, 104 U.S. 737, 749, 26 L.Ed. 910. Cf. Singer Company v. Cramer, 192 U.S. 265, 275, 24 S.Ct. 291, 295, 48 L.Ed. 437. It was the view of both courts below that although a machine manufactured under McFeely's earlier patent had 's......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Chapter §24.03 Requirements for Plant Patent Protection
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Mueller on Patent Law Volume II: Patent Enforcement Title CHAPTER 24 Plant Patents
    • Invalid date
    ...at 1347.[74] Beineke, 690 F.3d at 1348.[75] Beineke, 690 F.3d at 1349.[76] Beineke, 690 F.3d at 1349 (quoting Singer Mfg. Co. v. Cramer, 192 U.S. 265, 276 (1904)). For criticism of the Federal Circuit's Beineke decision as failing to grapple with the "sea change" brought about by the 1952 P......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT