Beidler v. United States, 260
| Decision Date | 07 June 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 260,260 |
| Citation | 40 S.Ct. 564,253 U.S. 447,64 L.Ed. 1006 |
| Parties | BEIDLER v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Charles J. Williamson and Frank S. Appleman, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
The Attorney General, Mr. Frank Davis, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and Messrs. Daniel L. Morris, and Edward G. Curtis, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen., for the United States.
This is a suit to recover damages for the infringement of 5 of the 41 claims of letters patent No. 1,057,397, applied for March 23, 1907, and granted on March 25, 1913.
The specification describes the claimed invention as an improvement in photographing and developing apparatus, and as designed primarily for reproducing writings, drawings, pictures or the like, 'novel means being also provided to convey the sensitized film through a series of receptacles containing suitable developing and fixing fluids or though suitable baths, according to requirements.'
The patent is for a machine made up of a combination of elements all of which were old, to produce a result which was old but by a method of co-ordination and operation which it is claimed is new and useful. The invention is declared in the specification to consist in 'the details of construction and in the arrangement and combination of the parts,' as 'set forth and claimed' by the inventor.
Figure 1 of the drawings, forming a part of the specification, will aid in explaining the construction and function of the invention as claimed and in determining the character and extent of the disclosures of the patent.
The described mode of operation is substantially as follows:
W is a roll of sensitized paper or film placed immediately below the exposure chamber F of a camera, with its sensitized surface uppermost to receive the desired image, reflected from the mirror H. This film is fed into the chamber between the rolls b, and thence along the floor to the rollers D where it emerges from the camera and is seized by 'clips' or clamps N. These clamps are supported and carried by a rack M, and may be moved to and fro (reciprocated) by turning the pinions L on the shaft K, by means of a crank.
I, J and J' are shallow pans or 'tanks' in which suitable 'developing,' 'fixing,' and 'washing' solutions or fluids are placed and the whole of the construction to the right of the camera, as we face the print, is inclosed in a light-proof case E, referred to in the patent sometimes as a 'compartment' and sometimes as a 'chamber.' The rack M, and the clamps which hold and support the film, move above the tanks and necessarily above the level of the liquid within them. By turning the pinion L, the rack M is moved outwardly away from the camera, and the clamps draw the film after them until the required length is attained, when it is severed from the roll by a manually operated cutter, O. When the film is thus cut to the desired length, obviously only the free end will fall to the surface of the solution in the tank I, and by continuing the outward movement of the rack M, the specification declares, 'the film is carried through the several tanks.' The 'clips' or clamps are set and released automatically and at the limit of the outward movement the film is released and falls into the tank J'. By reversing the turning of the pinions L the rack and clamps are returned inwardly to the camera, so that the oe ration, just detailed, may be repeated.
The Court of Claims carries into its findings of fact fourteen patents as illustrative of the prior art, and with this exhibit before us we fully agree with that court that the claim of invention of appellant must be restricted to the disclosed construction and operation of the mechanism for carrying the exposed section of film 'through the developing and other solutions or liquids' after it leaves the camera.
In the description of the operation of the machine as we have just given it, there is no provision other than gravity for causing the free end of the film, when it is cut from the roll, to sink into the developing fluid, and the other end of it is held between the clamps, above the surface of the fluid, as it is drawn along from one tank to another. The Court of Claims found that under such conditions of operation all of the film would not be submerged with sufficient rapidity and uniformity to secure a proper and useful development of the image and this conclusion is not seriously disputed. But the appellant contends that the required submergence may be obtained by oscillating the rack and clamps (and thereby the film) back and forth within the range of a few inches when the film is over the first tank I, with the result that the free end of the film,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. Wright
...865, 86 L.Ed. 1171; General Electric Co. v. Wabash Corp., 1938, 304 U.S. 364, 58 S.Ct. 899, 82 L.Ed. 1402; Beidler v. United States, 1920, 253 U.S. 447, 40 S.Ct. 564, 64 L.Ed. 1006. The attorneys for defendants and counter-complainants may lodge with the Clerk pursuant to local rule 7 withi......
-
Scott Paper Co v. Marcalus Mfg Co
...Garneau v. Dozier, 102 U.S. 230, 26 L.Ed. 133; Wollensak v. Reiher, 115 U.S. 87, 5 S.Ct. 1132, 29 L.Ed. 355; Beidler v. United States, 253 U.S. 447, 40 S.Ct. 564, 64 L.Ed. 1006; Mackay Co. v. Radio Corporation, 306 U.S. 86, 94, 618, 59 S.Ct. 427, 431, 83 L.Ed. 506. Cf. Hocking v. Hocking, 4......
-
Daniel v. O. & M. MFG. CO.
...v. Art Marble Co. of America, supra; United Advertising Corp. of Texas v. Stimson, 5 Cir., 89 F.2d 450, 452; Beidler v. U. S., 253 U.S. 447, 451, 40 S.Ct. 564, 64 L.Ed. 1006, 1009; Permutil Co. v. Graver Corp., 284 U.S. 52, 52 S.Ct. 53, 55, 76 L.Ed. 10. If the invention is not disclosed in ......
-
Sun Ray Gas Corp. v. Bellows-Claude Neon Co.
...S. Ct. 75, 40 L. Ed. 221; Minerals Separation, Ltd., v. Hyde, 242 U. S. 261, 271, 37 S. Ct. 82, 61 L. Ed. 286; Beidler v. U. S., 253 U. S. 447, 453, 40 S. Ct. 564, 64 L. Ed. 1006; Eibel Co. v. Paper Co., 261 U. S. 45, 66, 43 S. Ct. 322, 67 L. Ed. 523; American Lava Co. v. Steward, 155 F. 73......
-
Exclusivity Without Patents: The New Frontier of FDA Regulation for Genetic Materials
...eventually expire and the disclosures contained therein “become a part of the public stock of knowledge.” Beidler v. United States, 253 U.S. 447, 453 (1920). During the lifetime of the patent, however, the broader the scope of the patent and the lower the competition, the less benefit the p......
-
D. Alan White, the Doctrine of Equivalents: Fairness and Uncertainty in an Era of Biologic Pharmaceuticals
...the Hatch- Waxman legislation and the prospects of similar legislation for biologics); Thisse, supra note 12. 15 Beidler v. United States, 253 U.S. 447, 453 (1920) ("[A] correct and adequate description or disclosure of a claimed discovery . . . is essential to the validity of a patent, for......