Computing Scale Company of America v. Automatic Scale Company
Decision Date | 25 February 1907 |
Docket Number | No. 175,175 |
Parties | COMPUTING SCALE COMPANY OF AMERICA v. AUTOMATIC SCALE COMPANY |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Melville Church and Joseph B. Church for appellant.
Messrs. H. P. Doolittle and E. Hilton Jackson for appellee.
This is an appeal from the court of appeals of the District of Columbia, affirming a decree of the supreme court of the District, dismissing the bill of the Computing Scale Company of America, appellant, against the Automatic Scale Company, based upon the alleged infringement of letters patent No. 700,919, granted to the complainant as the assignee of the inventor, Austin B. Hayden, said letters bearing date May 27, 1902, for an improvement in computing scales.
The bill contained a prayer for an injunction and accounting. The answer denied the patentability of the alleged invention of the plaintiff, set up the alleged anticipating invention of one Christopher, and denied infringement.
The alleged improvement of Hayden is shown in the accompanying illustrations taken from the patent. [See next page.]
To understand these drawings they are to be viewed in the light of the description of the mechanism given by complainant's expert, which has the approval of the expert of the defendant, and was accepted as correct in the court of appeals. This description, somewhat abridged, is as follows:
'The two principal parts of the mechanism are as follows: 1st, a vertically arranged, nonrotating frame which comprises and includes a vertical cylindrical casing which incloses, conceals, and protects the major portion of the operating portions of the scale, and upon which are marked the price indications which indicate the price per pound at which the articles weighed are to be sold. As clearly shown in the drawings this external casing or frame is provided with a vertically disposed sight opening through which the coacting mechanism is observable, and along one vertical edge of this sight opening are arranged the numerals indicating the price per pound.
'The second of these principal parts is a second cylinder located within the casing, this cylinder constituting a computing cylinder or chart drum upon which are placed indications indicating the weight in pounds of the article weighed, and also having other indications indicating the price of an article weighed corresponding to the weight and to the price per pound. This chart drum or computing cylinder extends vertically within external casing and it is arranged to rotate on a vertical axis within the external casing. This casing is appropriately connected to the spring balancing mechanism and to the scale pan so that when the spring balancing mechanism moves up and down on the placing or removing of a load on the scale pan, the chart drum will be rotated in one direction or the other within the external casing or frame.
[NOTE: MATERIAL SET AT THIS POINT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE (GRAPHIC OR TABULAR MATERIAL)]
'As shown in Fig. 2, the weight and value-indicating figures are placed in horizontal rows on the external surface or periphery of the rotatable chart drum of the computing cylinder, the weight indications being shown in a horizontal row at the bottom, and the price indications in horizontal rows above, there being as many of these horizontal rows of price indicating figures as there are 'price per pound' indicating figures on the fixed external casing. These valueindicating figures on
[Graphic from this page is combined with the graphic on page 611] the chart drum are computed at different rates corresponding to the 'price per pound' figures on the external casing. As indicated in figure 2 of the drawings of the patent, there is supposed to be a weight on the scale pan of 5 pounds, this weight being indicated on the weight scale, and it will be seen that in such instance the various value indications on the chart drum opposite the 'price per pound' indications on the fixed casing are, in each illustrated instance, five times as great as the corresponding 'price per pound' indications. The drawings illustrate only a portion of the indicating figures on the chart drum, but it will be understood in practice that this drum will be entirely covered on its external surface with figures corresponding to the weights multiplied by the figures indicating 'price per pound' on the nonrotatable external casing. Accordingly, whenever the interior chart drum is turned a distance corresponding to the load placed on the scale pan, the value of the load can be read at once opposite the figures on the external casing which correspond to the price per pound of the article weighed.
'The various price indications on the chart drum are visible through the sight opening in the external casing.
'Accordingly, the mechanism is such that the vertical movement of the runner is translated into rotary movement of the chart drum, and the chart drum is rotated to an extent proportional to the vertical movement of the runner.'
In his application, Hayden, having set forth a description of his invention, disclaiming any intention to limit his invention by the precise description of the specifications, except as appears from his claims, sets forth eleven (11) claims, which he alleges as new and desires to secure by letters patent.
The claims alleged to be infringed in this case are numbered 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8. Numbers 1 and 2 are practically alike, except that in No. 2 the spring-supported, load-bearing, and cylinder-revolving rod is described as nonrotatably suspended. Claims 6, 7, and 8 have some trifling variations, but, in the view we take of this case, they are sufficiently embodied in claim No. 6. We shall, therefore, consider, in arriving at a decision, claims 1 and 6. They are as follows:
'1. In a spring-balance computing scale, the combination of a suitably-supported vertical nonrotatable casing provided with a price index, a vertical rotatable computing cylinder journaled in said casing, provided with cost computations, a spring-supported, load-bearing, and cylinder-revolving rod suspended from said casing, and connecting means between rod and computing cylinder, whereby, by longitudinal movement of the rod, rotary movement is imparted to said cylinder, substantially as and for the purpose set forth.
Hayden did not assume to be a pioneer in this field of invention, but he claims to have made an improvement in computing scales of the spring-balance type, and states his object to be specially to increase the computing capacity of scales of that type.
An examination of the record discloses that computing scales have been the subject of prior inventions and were well known at the time of Hayden's application. It is true that the scales disclosed in the prior art were generally those having a horizontal axis, case, and cylinder, although it was not new to arrange a scale bertically.
If we are to read the claims as broadly as is contended for, and omit, for the present, vertical construction shown by Hayden, we shall find in the patent of Phinney, No. 106,869, of August 30, 1870, a computing scale having the general elements of a nonrotatable casing, provided with a price index and rotatable cylinder journaled in the case, and having computations thereon, a suspended, spring-supported, load-bearing, and cylinder-revolving rod, and connecting means between the rod and computing...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Henry J. Kaiser Company v. McLouth Steel Corp.
...L.Ed. 500; Wm. B. Scaife & Sons Co. v. Falls City Woolen Mills Co., 6 Cir., 209 F. 210, 213; see Computing Scale Co. v. Automatic Scale Co., 204 U.S. 609, 620, 621 27 S.Ct. 307, 51 L.Ed. 645; cf. in case of disclaimer Altoona Publix Theatres Inc. v. Tri-Ergon Corp., 294 U.S. 477, 492, 493 5......
-
Freeman v. Altvater
...Co. v. American Fur Refining Co., 198 U. S. 399, 406, 25 S. Ct. 697, 49 L. Ed. 1100; Computing Scale Co. of America v. Automatic Scale Co., 204 U. S. 609, 621, 27 S. Ct. 307, 51 L. Ed. 645; Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co., 210 U. S. 405, 415, 28 S. Ct. 748, 52 L. Ed. 1122......
-
Hilton Davis Chemical Co. v. Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc.
...and of the file wrapper, the petitioner is not entitled to a broad reading of the claim."); Computing Scale Co. v. Automatic Scale Co., 204 U.S. 609, 617, 27 S.Ct. 307, 310-11, 51 L.Ed. 645 (1907) ("[I]t is well settled that the claim as allowed must be read and interpreted with reference t......
-
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.
...Smith v. Magic City Kennel Club, Inc., 282 U.S. 784, 788, 51 S.Ct. 291, 293 (1931), Computing Scale Co. of America v. Automatic Scale Co., 204 U.S. 609, 618-20 (1907), Hubbell v. United States, 179 U.S. 77, 83, 21 S.Ct. 24, 26-27 (1900), and Sutter v. Robinson, 119 U.S. 530, 541, 7 S.Ct. 37......
-
Basics of Intellectual Property Laws for the Antitrust Practitioner
...2005); Tex. Instruments , 805 F.2d at 1563. 157. Tex. Instruments , 805 F.2d at 1563; see also Computing Scale Co. v. Automatic Scale Co., 204 U.S. 609, 621 (1907) (“The distinction between 24 Antitrust Counterattack in Intellectual Property Litigation Handbook infringement, infringement un......
-
Without a Net: the Supreme Court Attempts to Balance Patent Protection and Public Notice in Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co
...arose where "claim was rejected on the prior patent to" a different patentee); Computing Scale Co. of America v. Automatic Scale Co., 204 U.S. 609, 618-20 (1907) (claims amended based on prior art rejections); Hubbel v. United States, 179 U.S. 77, 83 (1900) (estoppel applied where claim ele......
-
Without a Net: the Supreme Court Attempts to Balance Patent Protection and Public Notice in Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co
...arose where "claim was rejected on the prior patent to" a different patentee); Computing Scale Co. of America v. Automatic Scale Co., 204 U.S. 609, 618-20 (1907) (claims amended based on prior art rejections); Hubbel v. United States, 179 U.S. 77, 83 (1900) (estoppel applied where claim ele......
-
Reconsidering estoppel: patent administration and the failure of Festo.
...broaden his claim by dropping the element which he was compelled to include...."); Computing Scale Co. of Am. v. Automatic Scale Co., 204 U.S. 609, 618-20 (1907) (rejecting the initial claims based on lack of invention over prior patents); Hubbell v. United States, 179 U.S. 77, 83 (1900) (h......