Card v. Colby
Citation | 64 F. 594 |
Decision Date | 28 November 1894 |
Docket Number | 184. |
Parties | CARD v. COLBY. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) |
Cyrus J. Wood (E. M. Marble, of counsel), for appellant.
Barton & Brown, for appellee.
Before WOODS and JENKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUNN, District Judge.
This is an appeal from an interlocutory decree passed on the 3d day of May, 1894, adjudging the validity of letters patent No 373,223, issued to Edward J. Colby, November 15, 1887, for a 'toy locomotive,' and restraining the appellant from making, using, or selling toy banks or coin receivers containing the invention described and set forth in such patent, or from otherwise infringing upon Mr. Colby's rights under the patent. Colby v. Card, 63 F. 462. The decree adjudged that the appellant had infringed in making, using, and selling devices for coin holders made under and in accordance with letters patent No. 449,280 issued to Henry M. Brigham, March 31, 1891. The controversy involves the merits of the Colby patent, and the proper construction of the first claim therein, and the question of infringement. The specification forming part of the letters patent states that Mr. Colby has invented a 'new and useful bank.' He says:
The drawings represent a toy locomotive, and the patentee describes the use and operation of his invention as follows:
He further states:
The claims of the patent are as follows:
The first claim of the patent is alone involved in the contention here. The alleged infringing device is substantially a single tube having a fixed cover and a removable bottom, and provided with a slot or guide through which the coins are inserted. Attached to the removable bottom is a spiral spring upon which there is a cup-shaped piston. There is also a radially moving spring fixed near the end, which is secured in place, and dropped into a pocket on the inside of the cylinder, thereby preventing the bottom cover from being unscrewed. The cup-shaped follower is pressed towards the top of the cylinder by the spiral spring, but upon the insertion of the coins it is depressed until finally it moves over the radially moving spring, and presses it back out of the pocket in the cylinder, releasing the bottom cover so that it may be unscrewed, and the coins removed; in the language of the claim, 'the bottom being automatically released by the pressure of the coin when a predetermined number is inserted. ' The difference in operation between the two articles is well and succinctly stated by the learned judge whose decree is here under consideration:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Steiner & Voegtly Hardware Co. v. Tabor Sash Co.
...in describing the invention. Rev. St. Sec. 4889 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3382); Bates v. Coe, 98 U.s. 31, 38, 25 L.Ed. 68; Card v. Colby, 64 F. 594, 12 C.C.A. 319; v. Schroeder, 106 F. 918, 46 C.C.A. 41; Lamb Knit Goods Co. v. Lamb Glove, etc., Co., 120 F. 267, 56 C.C.A. 547; Mossberg v. Nu......
-
Little Gem Mfg. Co. v. Strauss
...... invention for which he claims a monopoly, it is unnecessary. to dive deeper than the following patents: The Colby patent,. No. 373,223, November 15, '87; The Brigham patent, No. 449,280, March 31, '91; the Goldsmith patent, No. 435,220, August 26, '90; the t patent, No. 449,852,. April 7, '91. The Colby and Brigham patents were in. litigation, and can be followed in Colby v. Card. (C.C.) 63 F. 462, and in Card v. Colby, 64 F. 594, 12 C.C.A. 319. The former is for a bank made in the form. of a locomotive or other toy. The ......
-
Kellogg Switchboard & Supply Co. v. Dean Electric Co.
...... in the specification and drawings, as well as in the claims,. all read in the light of the state of the art to which the. invention belongs. Card v. Colby, 64 F. 594, 12. C.C.A. 319. This principle, so clearly stated by the Circuit. Court of Appeals of this Circuit in D'Arcy v. Staples. & ......
- Ross v. City of Minneapolis