Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Company v. Davis
Decision Date | 01 October 1880 |
Parties | GOODYEAR DENTAL VULCANITE COMPANY v. DAVIS |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Masschusetts.
This was a bill in equity brought by the Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Company against Charles G. Davis, alleging his infringement of reissued letters-patent No. 1904, dated March 21, 1865, and granted to the complainant, as assignee of John A. Cummings, for an improvement in artificial gums and plates.
The bill was, on a final hearing upon the pleadings and proofs, dismissed. The complainant appealed here.
The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.
The case was argued by Mr. William Henry Clifford and Mr. Benjamin F. Lee for the appellant, and by Mr. Henry Baldwin, Jr., and Mr. William D. Shipman, for the appellee.
The invention described in the Cummings reissue patent is claimed in the words following: 'The plate of hard rubber or vulcanite, or its equivalent, for holding artificial teeth, or teeth and gums, substantially as described.' The claim cannot be understood without reference to the details given in the specification. In that it is said to consist 'in forming the plate to which the teeth, or teeth and gums, are attached, of hard rubber, or 'vulcanite,' so called,—an elastic material possessing and retaining in use sufficient rigidity for the purpose of mastication, and, at the same time, being pliable enough to yield a little to the motions of the mouth.' The mode of 'forming' the plate is then minutely described. The earlier steps of the process need not be particularly noticed. They relate to the formation of a plaster mould, fitted to the corresponding part of the mouth, with the artificial teeth adhering in the mould in exactly the relative position they are to occupy in the hardrubber plate. The specification then proceeds as follows: 'I then' (says the patentee)
Such is the description, both of the material of which the plate is formed and of the method or process by which it is made.
We had occasion in Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Company et al. (93 U.S. 486) to construe this patent, and determine what the invention claimed and patented really was. We held it to be 'a set of artifieial teeth, as a new article of manufacture, consisting of a plate of hard rubber with teeth, or teeth and gums secured thereto in the manner described in the specification, by embedding the teeth and pins in a vulcanizable compound, so that it shall surround them, while it is in a soft state, before it is vulcanized, and so that, when it has been vulcanized, the teeth are firmly and inseparably secured in the vulcanite, and a tight joint is effected between them, the whole constituting but one piece.' We said, The process detailed in the description antecedent to the claim, and referred to thereby, is as much a part of the invention as are the materials of which the plate or product is composed. Both are necessary elements of it. Hence, to constitute an infringement of the patent, both the material of which the dental plate is made, or its equivalent, and the process of constructing the plate, or a process equivalent thereto, must be employed. It is, therefore, essential to a correct determination of this case to consider what was the material made by the patentee an element of his invention, and what can be considered an equivalent therefor.
It is impossible to read the specification of the original patent, or that of the reissue, upon which this suit is founded, without the conviction that the patentee had in mind primarily a single substance for his material, and that one of a peculiar character, itself a compound discovered and patented not long before. Thus, in the original, which was loosely drawn, the invention was said to consist 'in forming the plate and gums, to which the teeth are attached, of rubber, or some other elastic material so indurated as to be rigid enough for the purpose of mastication, and pliable enough to yield a little to the motions of the mouth, and in one piece, the teeth being embedded in the elastic material while the said material is in a soft condition, and then baked, with the gums and plate, so that the teeth, gums, and plate will all be connected, forming, as it were, one piece.' And again, The claim also expressed the same thought. It was 'forming the plate and gums in which the teeth are inserted, in one piece, of hard rubber or vulcanite, i.e. an elastic material which can be hardened sufficiently for mastication, and retain a portion of its elasticity, so as to yield a little to the motion of the mouth, as herein set forth, and for the purposes specified.' Though the specification spoke of rubber, or of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. American Bell Tel. Co.
... ... in those cases; to enjoin the Bell Company from asserting any ... right under those patents in any ... 1062, and post, 608. In Rubber Co. V ... Goodyear, 9 Wall. 796, (an infringement suit,) the court ... Blatchf. 453; Celluloid Co. v. Vulcanite Co., Id ... 375; U.S. v. Frazer, 22 F. 106; Town of ... Avery, 101 U.S. 256; Vulcanite Co. v ... Davis, 102 U.S. 222 ... But ... fraud in obtaining a ... ...
-
Atlantic Thermoplastics Co., Inc. v. Faytex Corp.
...few years later, the same patent was again before the Supreme Court--this time in an infringement context. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Davis, 102 U.S. 222, 26 L.Ed. 149 (1880). A district court had held that a celluloid plate for artificial teeth with its differing process did not infr......
-
Autogiro Company of America v. United States
...ed.). 12 The use of the file wrapper as "legislative history" has been condoned 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......
-
Texas Co. v. Globe Oil & Refining Co.
...construction. If, however, the claims, as issued, are not clear and unambiguous, then under the doctrine of Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Davis, 102 U.S. 222, 26 L.Ed. 149, the antecedent statements of the applicant would be relevant for the purpose of clearing up this ambiguity; particu......
-
Chapter §15.05 Disclaimer or Disavowal
...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.S. 1 (1966) for its ruling, in addressing the invalidity of the......
-
Phillips v. AWH, Corp., a doctrine of equivalents case?
...at *4. See also Osenga, supra note 29. (36.) Id. See also, Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1321-22 (quoting Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Davis, 102 U.S. 222, 227 [I]t is inevitable that the multiple dictionary definitions for a term will extend beyond the "construction of the patent [that] is con......