Gould v. Rees
Citation | 21 L.Ed. 39,82 U.S. 187,15 Wall. 187 |
Parties | GOULD v. REES |
Decision Date | 01 December 1872 |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Rees used Gould in an action at law for an alleged infringement of a patent for improvement in steam engines, dated January 24th, 1860.
The claims of the patent were as follows:
'Having thus described the nature, construction, and operation of my improvement, what I claim as my invention and desire to secure by letters-patent of the United States is:
Numerous exceptions were taken by the defendant to certain rulings of the court, and also to certain instructions to the jury, but this court passed mainly upon the principle involved in the second and third specifications of error, which were in these words:
'2d. The court below erred in instructing the jury in reply to the fourth point of law presented by the counsel of the defendants below, which point was in the following words:
"That when a combination of mechanical devices is claimed, it is not infringed by the use of a combination differing substantially in any of its parts, and that the omission of one essential feature or element of the combination as claimed avoids the patent.'
'The charge of the court below to said fourth point being as follows:
counsel, which point was in the following words:
"That the first claim of the plaintiff's patent, in the following words, to wit: 'I claim the flanges i, on the reversing crank or arm b, and the projection t, on the cam-rod e, when used for the purpose of guiding the hooks 1 and 2 into their proper position on the wrists 3 and 4 of the reversing crank or arm b, as described and set forth,' is for a combination of the arm b, having flanges i, with the cam-rod e having a projection t, and is not infringed by the use of either of the elements of the combination without the other, nor by the use of the arm b if without the flanges i; or of the cam-rod e without the projection t.'
'The charge of the court to said sixth point being as follows:
Verdict having gone under these rulings for the plaintiff, the defendant brought the case here.
Mr. G. H. Christy, for the plaintiff in error. No counsel appeared on the other side.
Patentable inventions may consist entirely in a new combination of old ingredients whereby a new and useful result is obtained, and in such cases the description of the invention is sufficient if the ingredients are named, the mode of operation given, and the new and useful result is pointed out, so that those skilled in the art, and the public may know the nature and extent of the claim and what the parts are which co-operate to produce the described new and useful result.
Damages are claimed by the plaintiff for the alleged infringement of certain letters-patent, and he instituted for that purpose an action of trespass on the case against the defendant to recover compensation for the alleged injury.
Letters-patent were granted to the plaintiff on the twenty-fourth of January, 1860, for a new and useful improvement in steam engines, described in the specification as 'a new and useful mode of operating and handling' such machines, which consists, as the patent states, in so arranging and constructing the cranks or arms of the lifters and cam-rods of puppet-valve engines that they may be operated and handled with ease and speed, by means of levers and connecting rods, the whole being arranged and constructed in the manner described in the specification.
Very minute description of the various parts of the mechanism of the invention is given in the specification, and in order to enable others skilled in the art to make and use the invention, the patentee proceeds, with much detail, to describe its construction and operation, but in the view taken of the case by the court it will not be necessary to enter into those details in the present investigation of the controversy between these parties.
Process was issued, and being served, the defendant appeared and pleaded as follows: (1.) That he was not guilty. (2.) That the plaintiff was not the original and first inventor of the improvement described in the letters-patent, and tendered an issue to the country, which was joined by the plaintiff.
Besides the two pleas pleaded, he also gave notice in writing that he would give evidence under the general issue to prove that the alleged invention was well known and generally used in steamboats navigating the Western waters long anterior to the alleged date of the plaintiff's invention. Subsequently the parties went to trial, and the jury, under the instructions given by the court, returned their verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant excepted to certain rulings and to the instructions of the court, and sued out a writ of errr and removed the cause into ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
National Hollow Brake-Beam Co. v. Interchangeable Brake-Beam Co.
...... a new machine or composition of matter. Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516, 542, 548, 20 L.Ed. 33; Gould. v. Rees, 15 Wall. 187, 189, 21 L.Ed. 39; Thomson v. Bank, 53 F. 250, 252, 3 C.C.A. 518, 520, 10 U.S.App. 500, 509. The prior art discloses no ......
-
Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc.
...unless all the parts have been substantially used. The use of a part less than the whole is no infringement. Gould v. Rees, 82 U.S. (15 Wall.) 187, 194, 21 L.Ed. 39 (1872): Where the defendant in constructing his machine omits entirely one of the ingredients of the plaintiff's combination w......
-
Pointer v. Six Wheel Corporation
...first taught the art. Whether, as the court found, both were known as proper substitutes for the mentioned elements, — Gould v. Rees, 1872, 15 Wall. 187, 193, 21 L.Ed. 39, — or not, the court found correctly identity of structure on the ground of equivalency. Gill v. Wells, 1874, 22 Wall. 1......
-
Matherson-Selig Co. v. Carl Gorr Color Card, Inc.
...28 S.Ct. 748, 749, 52 L.Ed. 1122, and cases cited; Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516, 556 78 U.S. 516, 20 L.Ed. 33; Gould v. Rees, 15 Wall. 187, 192 82 U.S. 187, 21 L.Ed. 39. The wholesome realism of this doctrine is not always applied in favor of a patentee but is sometimes used against him......