Butler v. Shaw
| Decision Date | 20 August 1884 |
| Citation | Butler v. Shaw, 21 F. 321 (D. Mass. 1884) |
| Parties | BUTLER and others v. SHAW. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
W. E Simonds, for complainants.
J. J Coombs, for defendant.
Before GRAY and NELSON, JJ.
This is a bill in equity under section 4915 of the Revised Statutes filed in this court on August 16, 1882, by Francis G. Butler a citizen of Connecticut, and the Vermont Farm Machine Company, a Vermont corporation, as his assignee, against Betsey H. Shaw, a citizen of Massachusetts, assignee of Philander Shaw, to obtain an adjudication that Butler is entitled to a patent for improvements in milk-cans, which has been refused him by the commissioner of patents, upon an interference declared between him and the defendant.
The case cannot be well understood without an abstract of the proceedings in the patent-office, copies of which have been submitted to us, and which were in substance as follows:
On September 10, 1878, a patent was issued to Philander Shaw, on an application filed by him on February 4, 1878. The apparatus described in the specification of that patent was as follows:
The claims in that specification were as follows:
On November 20, 1878, Butler filed an application for a patent, in which, as afterwards amended to meet objections of the examiners, he described a milk vessel, with a pane of glass near the top of sufficient length, vertically, to show the height of the cream raised upon the milk; and with an outlet at the bottom opening into a discharging tube or faucet, turning on a center pin or arbor, and adjustable so as to bring its discharging mouth at a height above the bottom of the can, equal to the depth of the layer of cream, and automatically discharge all the milk, leaving the cream in the can; and made two claims, the second of which is not now insisted on, and requires no further mention, and the first of which was as follows: '(1) A milk vessel, having an adjustable faucet that can be set to automatically discharge any predetermined quantity of milk, to leave in the vessel a certain quantity of cream, and provided with a glass pane to ascertain the degree or place of adjustment of the faucet.'
On April 12, 1879, the examiner rejected this first claim in Butler's application, on the ground that its subject-matter had been anticipated by the patent already granted to Shaw. Butler thereupon asked that an interference might be declared between his application and that patent. An interference was declared between Butler's first claim and Shaw's patent upon this claim or issue:
'A can for milk and cream separation, having an adjustable automatic discharge faucet, and a transparent pane by which the place or degree of faucet adjustment may be determined.'
In the interference proceedings, Butler stated that in November, 1876, he conceived and practically tested the invention of such a can as described in this issue. Shaw stated that in March, 1876, he embodied his invention in a model; and on April 5, 1880, (Shaw having died in September, 1879,) Mrs. Shaw, at the suggestion of the examiner, filed an application for a reissue, repeating the description and the claims of Shaw's original patent, and inserting a new claim in the words of this issue.
The examiner of interferences decided that Shaw was the prior inventor. On appeal by Butler from that decision to the board of examiners in chief, one of them was in favor of affirming it. But the majority of the board held that the reissue application had materially enlarged the scope of Shaw's claim, and had brought in objectionable new matter to make a conflict, when none existed in fact, between the two devices; that Shaw's other claims covered his real invention and all that he was entitled to; that Butler's first claim was limited to the device which he had invented, and in no way trenched upon the invention of Shaw; that Shaw's device was for separating cream from milk, by drawing off the cream from the top of the milk, leaving the milk in the can, and could not be used to draw off the milk and leave the cream; and Butler's device was for separating milk from cream, by drawing off the milk at the bottom, leaving the cream in the can, and could not be used to draw off the cream and leave the milk; that the two devices were mechanically different, having no feature in common, except the glass panes and the indicators, which were well known, and not patentable by either; that an interference had been declared, and the parties had been contending, on a matter which one had not claimed and which neither was entitled to; and therefore recommended that the interference be dissolved and the case be remanded to the primary examiner, with instructions to reject Shaw's new claim and allow the parties to take patents on their other claims, unless some good reason could be shown for rejection on further examination.
From the decision of the board of examiners Mrs. Shaw appealed to the commissioner of patents in person, who, on September 2, 1881, made the following decision:
...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Hyatt v. Doll
...and correct practice in the circuit courts. Whipple v. Miner, 15 F. 117 (C.C.D.Mass.1883); Ex parte Squire, 3 Ban. & A. 133; Butler v. Shaw, 21 F. 321. Butterworth, 112 U.S. at 61, 5 S.Ct. 25 (emphasis In Butterworth, the Supreme Court held that a section 4915 action should be heard on "all......
-
HYATT v. KAPPOS
...on such testimony as the parties may see fit to produce agreeably to the rules and practice of a court of equity.”); Butler v. Shaw, 21 F. 321, 327 (C.C.D.Mass.1884) (“[§ 4915] contains no provision requiring the case to be heard upon the evidence produced before the commissioner ... and, a......
-
Kappos v. Hyatt
...(describing the federal court's jurisdiction in an R.S. 4915 proceeding as "an independent, original jurisdiction"); Butler v. Shaw, 21 F. 321, 327 (C.C.D.Mass.1884) (holding that "the court may receive new evidence, and has the same powers as in other cases in equity").Ten years later, in ......
-
Century Distilling Co. v. Continental Distilling Co.
...4915 before the court below. See In re Hammer, D.C., 300 F. 246, affirmed, 2 Cir., 6 F.2d 460; Graham v. Teter, C.C., 25 F. 555; Butler v. Shaw, C.C., 21 F. 321; The Mergenthaler Linotype Co. v. Seymour, 66 O.G.1311, 1894 C.D. 186; Cleveland Trust Company v. Nelson et al., D.C., 51 F.2d Des......