Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Zylonite Brush & Comb Co.
Citation | 27 F. 291 |
Parties | CELLULOID MANUF'G CO. v. ZYLONITE BRUSH & COMB CO. and others. [1] |
Decision Date | 01 January 1886 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Rowland Cox, for complainant.
H. M Ruggles and Thos. W. Osborn, for defendants.
The defendant has interposed a plea to the bill of complaint, and the plea has been set down for argument. The suit is brought upon reissued letters patent granted December 23, 1884, to John W. Hyatt, Jr., and Isaiah S. Hyatt, assignors, for improvement in treating and moulding pyroxyline. It appears by the plea that the original patent was granted July 12 1870; that an application was made for a reissue May 26 1874, and a reissue was granted June 23, 1874; that an application was made for a second reissue March 10, 1884 which reissue was granted April 15, 1884; and that an application was made for a third reissue November 26, 1884, and a reissue was granted December 23, 1884. The plea sets forth the original patent and the several reissues in full. The original patent contained three claims; the first reissue contained five claims; the second reissue contained three claims; and the last reissue contains two claims.
The general nature of the invention was described in the specification of the original patent as follows:
'Our invention consists-- First, of so preparing pyroxyline that pigments and other substances in a powdered condition can be easily and thoroughly mixed therewith before the pyroxyline is subjected to the action of a solvent; secondly, of mixing with the pyroxyline so prepared any desirable pigment, coloring matter, or other material, and also any substance in a powdered state which may be vaporized or liquified, and converted into a solvent of pyroxyline by the application of heat; and, thirdly, of subjecting the compound so made to heavy pressure while heated, so that the least practicable proportion of solvent may be used in the production of solid collodion and its compounds.'
This description indicates sufficiently for present purposes what the invention was essentially. In the specification of the first reissue much additional explanatory matter was inserted for the purpose, obviously, of laying a foundation for more expanded claims than those of the original patent. In the specification of the second reissue this additional explanatory matter was mainly omitted, so that the specification read like that of the original patent, with some trifling and immaterial changes. The specification of the third reissue is practically identical with that of the original patent, except that it disclaims the invention which was the subject of the first claim in the original.
The claims of the original patent were as follows:
The claims of the first reissue were as follows:
The claims of the second reissue were as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
XXth Century Heating & Ventilating Co. v. Taplin, Rice-Clerkin Co.
... ... ' ... Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Zylonite Brush & Comb Co ... (C.C.) 27 F ... ...
-
Railroad Supply Co. v. Hart Steel Co.
... ... 301, 29 Sup.Ct. 495, 53 L.Ed. 805; ... Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Zylonite Brush & Comb Co ... (C.C.) 27 F ... ...
-
Green v. City of Lynn
... ... ' In Celluloid Manuf'g Co. v. Zylonite Brush & ... Comb Co., 27 F. 291, ... ...
-
Bryant Electric Co. v. Marshall
... ... patents.' ... And in ... Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Zylonite, etc., Co. (C.C.) 27 ... F. 291, 294, ... ...