Curtis v. Overman Wheel Co.
| Decision Date | 05 December 1893 |
| Citation | 58 F. 784 |
| Parties | CURTIS v. OVERMAN WHEEL CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
C. K Offield, for appellant.
Edward S. White, for appellees.
Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court of the United States for the district of Connecticut, which, upon the complainants' motion, enjoined, pendente lite, the defendant against the infringement of the first and second claims of letters patent No. 329,851, dated November 3, 1885 to Albert H. Overman, for an improved pedal for velocipedes. The order was based upon the adjudication in Manufacturing Co. v. Clark, by the circuit court for the district of Maryland, which sustained these claims. 46 F. 789.
The invention consisted--First, 'in a pedal having bars located upon opposite sides of a central working bearing, and provided with wide working faces, and arranged to turn to incline their upper or exposed faces toward each other;' second, 'in a pedal having the same arrangement of rectangular bars upon opposite sides of a central bearing;' and, third, 'in a pedal having bars, each composed of a light core of wood or equivalent material, and an envelope of rubber inclosing the same, and bearings passing through the core of each bar.' The three claims are respectively for these three improvements. The pedals of the defendant's machines infringe the first and second claims. The defendant presented various defenses, the most important being that the improvement was not patentable for want of novelty, and that, if novel, it was merely an improvement and not an invention.
The history of the art at the date of the alleged invention is stated in the specification as follows:
The defect in pedals of the second type, which is corrected by the pedals described in the first and second claims, is thus stated:
'While the bars are engaged with the sole of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bissell Carpet-Sweeper Co. v. Goshen Sweeper Co.
...' The American Paper-Pail & Box Co. v. National Folding-Box Co., 1 U.S.App. 283, 2 C.C.A. 165, and 51 F. 229, and Curtis v. Wheel Co., 20 U.S.App. 146, 7 C.C.A. 493, and 58 F. 784, were both appeals from preliminary injunctions, and do not necessarily present the question now under consider......
-
Lake Street El. R. Co. v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.
...26, and 67 F. 809; Richmond v. Atwood, 5 U.S.App. 151, 2 C.C.A. 596, and 52 F. 10; Curtis v. Wheel Co., 20 U.S.App. 146, 7 C.C.A. 493, and 58 F. 784; Union Switch & Co. v. Johnson Railroad Signal Co., 17 U.S.App. 609, 10 C.C.A. 176, and 61 F. 940; Jones Co. v. Munger Improved, etc., Co., 2 ......
-
Davis Elec. Works v. Edison Elec. Light Co.
...... to suggest that that from the second circuit, especially in. view of Curtis v. Wheel Co., 58 F. 784,. [1]. may be found to lean against the appellees. If their position. is ......
-
Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. Starr Piano Co.
...... its own convictions, should never be denied. Curtis v. Overman Wheel Co., 58 F. 784, 7 C.C.A. 493 (Second. Circuit, C.C.A.). It is also true that ......