Crawford v. Heysinger

Decision Date12 December 1887
Citation123 U.S. 589,31 L.Ed. 269,8 S.Ct. 399
PartiesCRAWFORD v. HEYSINGER et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Hector T. Fenton, for appellant.

Joshua Pusey, for appellees.

BLATCHFORD, J.

This is a bill in equity filed in the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Pennsylvania by Isaac W. Heysinger, Christian H. Hershey, and J. Loren Heysinger against James P. Crawford, founded on the alleged infringement of reissued letters patent No. 9,803, granted July 12, 1881, to George W. Heyl, assignee of Henry R. Heyl, the inventor, for 'an improvement in devices for inserting metallic staples;' the application for the reissue having been filed May 10, 1881, and the original patent, No. 195,603, having been granted to Henry R. Heyl, September 25, 1877, on an application filed September 20, 1877. Henry R. Heyl assigned the original patent to George W. Heyl, March 20, 1878, and George W. Heyl assigned the reissued patent to the plaintiffs, November, 23, 1881. This bill was filed June 9, 1883. The answer of the defendant sets up as defenses the invalidity of the reissue, want of novelty, and non-infringement. After issue joined, proofs were taken, and the circuit court, in November, 1883, entered an interlocutory decree, adjudging the reissued patent to be valid as respects claims 1 and 2, and that those claims had been infringed by the defendant, and awarding a perpetual injunction, and referring it to a master to take an account of profits and damages. On his report, a final decree was entered in May, 1884, in favor of the plaintiffs, for $225.75 damages, and for costs.

In order to consider any question involved as to the reissue, it is necessary to compare the specifications of the original and reissued patents. They are here placed in parallel columns, the parts of each which are not found in the other being in italics, the drawings in the two being substantially alike, with only immaterial differences in the lettering:

Original.

'To all whom it may concern: Be it known that I, Henry R. Heyl, of the city and county of Philadelphia and state of Pennsylvania, have invented a new and useful improvement in paper-fasteners, which improvement is fully set forth in the following specification and accompanying drawings, in which figures 1 and 5 are side elevations of the fastener embodying my invention. Fig. 2 is a vertical section in line, x, x, Fig. 1. Fig. 3 is a side elevation, partly sectional. Fig. 4 is a horizontal section in line, y, y, Fig. 1. Similar letters of reference indicate corresponding parts in the several figures.

'My invention consists of an implement of the form of a hand-stamp, by which metallic staples may b forced through sheets of paper documents, and secured by clinching the legs on the reverse side.

'Referring to the drawings, A represents a stationary anvil, which is secured to or formed with an arm rising from a suitable stand of convenient form for use upon a writing desk; and B represents a sliding guide-block fitted to the anvil, A, by a sliding joint, and having grooves, C, C, which match with the tongue of the anvil; the upper face of the block being flat. The normal position of the guide, B, is elevated, and, in order to keep it in this position, or from dropping prematurely, I employ a spring, D, which may press up under the guide, or a spring, D', which may press against it, and thus produce the necessary friction. Erepresents a reciprocating driver, whose under face is flat, and in the same is a concave recess, F; said driver having a knob, G, for receiving the blows of the hand, and provided with a spring, H, for causing the return or elevation of the driver.

'The operation is as follows: A staple is placed within the grooves, C, C, with its crown resting on the anvil, A, the points thus being upward. The papers to be united are now placed upon the face of the guide, B, over the staple-points, and, by a sharp blow of the hand upon the knob, G, the driver is forced downward upon the papers. The guide, B, gives way, and the staple-legs come up through the papers into the recess, F, where they are bent over preparatory to the final clinching. The hand is now released from the knob of the driver, the latter then rising, and the papers are drawn somewhat forward, until the staple-crown rests upon the face of the guide, B, when another blow is imparted to the driver, and the flat portion of its face descends forcibly on the staplelegs, so as to bend the latter close to the paper, thus completing the operation.

'It will be seen that the grooves, C, C, serve to support and guide the staple-legs during their penetration through the papers; and the recess, F, is so shaped that, as the staplelegs enter thereinto, they will strike the concave or slanting walls of said recess, and thus be bent inward towards each other sufficiently to insure their being bent down properly when again struck between the faces of the guide, B, and driver, E. A plate, a, may be advantageously employed to overlap the staple-crown, for preventing the latter from binding while the legs are being forced through the papers.

'Having thus described my invention, what I claim as new, and desire to secure by letters patent, is——

'(1) The reciprocating driver, E, constructed with a flat face recessed, substantially as described, whereby the projecting ends of staples may be first bent over by entering the recess and then flattened down by pressure from the flat face.

'(2) The self-adjusting guideblock, B, having staple-guiding grooves, C, C, and a flat face, upon which to complete the clinching of the staple, substantially as and for the purposes set forth.

'(3) The combination of the stationary staple-support or anvil, A, with the sliding-guide, B, grooved to partially embrace and guide the staple-legs, substantially as and for the purpose set forth.

'(4) The combination of the stationary staple-support or anvil, A, with the reciprocating slotted or recessed hammer, operating to insert a staple through layers of stock to be united, and simultaneously bend over its projecting ends, substantially as and for the

purpose set forth.'

Reissue.

'To all whom it may concern: Be it known that I, Henry R. Heyl, of the city and county of Philadelphia and state of Pennsylvania, have invented a new and useful improvement in paper-fasteners, which improvement is fully set forth in the following specifications and accompanying drawings, in which figures 1 and 5 are side elevations of the fastener embodying my invention. Fig. 2 is a vertical section in line, x, x, Fig. 1. Fig. 3 is a side elevation, partly sectional. Fig. 4 is a horizontal section in line, y, y, Fig. 1. Similar letters of reference indicate corresponding parts in the several figures.

'My invention consists of an implement of the form of a hand-stamp, by which metallic staples may be forced through sheets of paper or documents, and secured by clinching the legs on the reverse side.

[596]

'Referring to the drawings, A' represents a stationary anvil, which is secured to or formed with an arm rising from a suitable stand of convenient form for use upon a writing desk; and Brepresents a sliding guide-block fitted to the anvil, A', by a sliding joint, and having grooves, C, C, which match with the tongue of the anvil; the upper face of the block being flat. The normal position of the guide, B, is elevated, and, in order to keep it in this position, or from dropping prematurely, I employ a spring, D, which may press up under the guide, or a spring, D', which may press against it, and thus produce the necessary friction. Erepresents a reciprocating driver, whose under face is flat, and in the same is a concave recess, F; said driver having a knob, G, for receiving the blows of the hand, and provided with a spring, H, for causing the return or elevation of the driver.

'The operation is as follows: A staple is placed within the grooves, C, C, with its crown resting on, the anvil, A', the points thus being turned towards the bending recess, F. The papers to be united are now placed beneath the driver, and, by a sharp blow of the hand upon the knob, G, the driver is forced down ward upon the papers. The staple-legs come through the papers into the recess, F, where they are bent over by the slanting ends thereof.

'It will be seen that the grooves, C, C, serve to support and guide the staple-legs during their penetration through the papers; and the recess, F, is so shaped that, as the staple-legs enter thereinto, they will strike the concave or slanting walls of said recess, and thus be bent inward towards each other, as shown in Figs. 2 and 3. A plate, a, may be advantageously employed to overlap the staple-crown, for preventing the latter from bending while the legs are being forced through the papers.

'It will be seen that the staple support or anvil, A', with the slotted or recessed hammer, operates to insert a staple through layers of stock to be united, and simultaneously bends over its projecting ends.

'In my original specification, I described the further separate operation of completely flattening down the ends of the staple thus bent over, by a second blow between the upper and lower jaw of the implement, believing that the same was new; but I have since learned that the same result was obtained by devices described in previous letters patent of the United States. Should the legs of the staple, when bent over by the same blow which drives the same, as is hereinabove described, be found not to lie sufficiently close to the surface of the paper, the same may be further flattened down by a second blow between flat surfaces in front of the staple channel and bending recess, respectively, provided therefor.

'figs. 1, 2, and 3 show a hand-stamp embodying my invention, in which the driver reciprocates in a fixed head in the manner of a plunger, while Fig. 5 shows the same invention embodied in a hand-stamp, in which the driver is mounted at the end of a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 cases
  • Bull v. Logetronics, Inc., Civ. A. No. 4196.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • January 5, 1971
    ...file wrapper or prosecution history in the Patent Office. Hogg v. Emerson, 11 How. 587, 13 L. Ed. 824 (1850); Crawford v. Heysinger, 123 U.S. 589, 8 S.Ct. 399, 31 L.Ed. 269 (1887). Claims as allowed must be read and interpreted with reference to rejected ones and to the state of the prior a......
  • National Hollow Brake-Beam Co. v. Interchangeable Brake-Beam Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • February 28, 1901
    ... ... v. Kearney, 158 U.S. 461, 469, 15 ... Sup.Ct. 871, 39 L.Ed. 1055; Knapp v. Morss, 150 U.S ... 221, 14 Sup.Ct. 81, 37 L.Ed. 1059; Crawford v ... Heysinger, 123 U.S. 589, 8 Sup.Ct. 399, 31 L.Ed. 269 ... But this is the limit of the estoppel. One who acquiesces in ... the rejection ... ...
  • Autogiro Company of America v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • October 13, 1967
    ...by most courts. E.g., Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Davis, 102 U.S. (12 Otto) 222, 26 L.Ed. 149 (1880); Crawford v. Heysinger, 123 U.S. 589, 8 S.Ct. 399, 31 L. Ed. 269 (1887); Lavelle Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 358 F.2d 1005, 175 Ct. Cl. 325 (1966); Jones v. United States, 100 F.Su......
  • Texas Co. v. Central Fuel Oil Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • February 13, 1912
    ... ... obligations under the contract, this claim must be treated as ... abandoned, and therefore will be disregarded. Crawford v ... Heysinger, 123 U.S. 589, 8 Sup.Ct. 399, 31 L.Ed. 269; ... Home Benefit Association v. Sargent, 142 U.S. 691, ... 12 Sup.Ct. 332, 35 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Chapter §15.05 Disclaimer or Disavowal
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Mueller on Patent Law Volume II: Patent Enforcement Title CHAPTER 15 Patent Claim Interpretation
    • Invalid date
    ...and the claims allowed cannot by construction be read to cover what was thus eliminated from the patent."); Crawford v. Heysinger, 123 U.S. 589, 602–604 (1887); Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Davis, 102 U.S. 222, 227 (1880)). The Federal Circuit also cited Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT