Keystone Bridge Company v. Phoenix Iron Company
Citation | 95 U.S. 274,24 L.Ed. 344 |
Parties | KEYSTONE BRIDGE COMPANY v. PHOENIX IRON COMPANY |
Decision Date | 01 October 1877 |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
The case was argued by Mr. Henry Baldwin, Jr., for the appellant, and by Mr. George Harding for the appellee.
The appeal in this case is brought to review the decree of the Circuit Court dismissing the bill of complaint, which charges an infringement of two certain patents belonging to the Keystone Bridge Company. These patents were for improvements in iron truss bridges. The first was granted to J. H. Linville and his assignee J. I. Piper, Jan. 14, 1862; the second, to the same parties, Oct. 31, 1865. The particular claims upon which the contest arises before us are the first claim in the former patent, and the third in the latter. Both of these claims relate to the lower chords of the truss, the primary office of which is to hold the lower parts of the structure together, and keep them from spreading; but which are also employed in the construction of the patentees, to sustain the cross-sills which support the railroad.
We do not think we ought to disturb the decree of the Circuit Court in this case. We regard the construction of the claims in question insisted upon by the appellee as substantially correct. Those claims are the first in the patent of 1862, and the third in that of 1865. It is manifest that, in the former, the form of the chords is deemed material, or, at least, it is made so by the terms of the specification and claim. They are flat bars placed on edge so as to sustain superincumbent weight, as well as perform the office of tension braces. They are made in this form in order that the floor beams of the railroad may be directly laid on them. This is apparent from the whole tenor of the specification. The patentee, in describing his invention, commences by saying: 'My invention, consists, 1st, in a novel construction of the lower chords, and mode of applying the same, in combination with the posts and other parts of the truss.' Again: 'The bottom chords are each composed of a series of wide, thin eye-bars, of wrought iron, of a length corresponding with the distances between the posts on one side of the truss, placed on edge to enable them to give vertical support to the roadway,' &c. Then, after showing that these eye-bars or chords are made wider at the ends where the eye-holes are made for inserting the connecting pins or bolts, which connect the different sections together, and explaining the general construction of the bridge and its different parts, he concludes with the following claim: 'I do not claim the use of eye-bars or links as chains of suspension bridges; but what I claim as my invention, and desire to secure by letters-patent, is, 1st, the construction of the lower chords of truss bridges of series of wide and thin drilled eye-bars, C, C, applied on edge between ribs, S, S, on the bottoms of the posts, and connected by pins, P, P, supported in the diagonal tension braces, D and E, all substantially as herein described.' Words cannot show more plainly that the claim of the inventor does not extend to any other eye-bars or chords than such as are made wide and hin, and applied on edge. As those constructed by the defendant are cylindrical in form, only flattened at the eye for insertion between the ribs or projections of the posts, it is plain that no infringement of this claim of the patent has been committed.
The other claim in question, namely, the third claim of the patent of 1865, is for the employment in truss bridges of just such wide and thin chords as above described, whose ends are enlarged or widened by being upset (when heated) by compression into moulds in the manner described in the specification of the patent. The mode of upsetting, widening, and shaping the ends of the bars is by placing the ends, after the bars have been rolled into proper shape and size, and the ends heated, into a die-box of the regular form, and then firmly locking them in place, and with great power pressing them up endwise with a movable head-die until the hot iron fills the die-box. By this pressure the ends are upset, widened, and compressed into the desired shape. It is claimed that by this process the ends are made stronger and better able to sustain the great strain to which they are subjected when in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Autogiro Company of America v. United States
...claims have been found clear and unambiguous, courts have not gone beyond them to determine their content. Keystone Bridge Co. v. Phoenix Iron Co., supra, 95 U.S. at 278, 24 L.Ed. 344; Borg-Warner Corp. v. Mall Tool Co., 217 F.2d 850 (7th Cir. 1954); Zonolite Co. and Insulating Concrete Cor......
-
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.
...that court defines the scope of the claims and reversing the trial judge's erroneous claim construction); Keystone Bridge Co. v. Phoenix Iron Co., 95 U.S. 274, 275, 24 L.Ed. 344 (1877) (resolving claim construction contentions on the basis of an exhaustive review of the patent and its discu......
-
Johnson & Johnston Associates v. R.E. Service
...of extending the coverage of an exclusive right to encompass more than that properly examined by the PTO. Keystone Bridge Co. v. Phoenix Iron Co., 95 U.S. 274, 278, 24 L.Ed. 344 (1877) ("[T]he courts have no right to enlarge a patent beyond the scope of its claim as allowed by the Patent Of......
-
Hilton Davis Chemical Co. v. Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc.
...The rule against enlargement of claim scope during claim construction is well settled. See, e.g., Keystone Bridge Co. v. Phoenix Iron Co., 95 U.S. 274, 278-79, 24 L.Ed. 344 (1877). This dissent errs, however, in arguing that application of the doctrine of equivalents enlarges the claim scop......
-
The Rosetta Stone for the doctrine of means-plus-function patent claims.
...of such a car, the octagonal car was substantially the same as the circular"). (89.) See eg., Keyestone Bridge Co. v. Phoenix Iron Co., 95 U.S. 274, 279 (1877) (holding, "As patents are procured ex parte, the public is not bound by them, but the patentees are. And the latter cannot show tha......
-
Construing patent claims according to their "interpretive community": a call for an attorney-plus-artisan perspective.
...Wright v. Yuengling, 155 U.S. 47, 49-52 (1894) (using the specification in claim construction); Keystone Bridge Co. v. Phoenix Iron Co., 95 U.S. 274, 275-78 (1877) (same); Merrill v. Yeomans, 94 U.S. 568, 571 (1876) (same); Am. Original Corp. v. Jenkins Food Corp., 696 F.2d 1053, 1056-58 (4......
-
Patent Law for the General Practitioner
...525 U.S. 55, 58-59, 68-69 (1998). 36. 35 U.S.C. 102(f) (2001). 37. Id. 154(a)(1). 38. See, e.g., Keystone Bridge Co. v. Phoenix Iron Co., 95 U.S. 274, 278-79 (1877) (limiting patentees to claims); Merrill v. Yeomans, 94 U.S. 568, 570 (1876) (stating that the "distinct and formal claim is - ......