Gunn v. Savage
Decision Date | 03 March 1887 |
Citation | 30 F. 366 |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
Parties | GUNN, Trustee, and others v. SAVAGE and others. |
Bowdoin S. Parker and Charles E. Perkins, for plaintiffs.
Marcus H. Holcomb and Charles E. Mitchell, for defendants.
This is a bill in equity which is founded upon the alleged infringement of letters patent No. 314,189 and No. 314,192 each dated March 17, 1885, and each issued to William Pearce the first-mentioned patent being for improvements in dies for forging ox-shoes, and the second being for an improved method of forging ox-shoes. The second patent is for the method of making shoes by the use of the dies of the first patent. As the decision of this case depends, in my opinion, upon the construction to be placed upon No. 314,189, it is important to give in full the substantial part of the specification which is as follows:
The claims are as follows:
'(1) The forging dies described, each of which beyond the end of its intaglio has the metal cut away to form a downward and outward inclining face, a or a 1, substantially as and for the purpose specified. (2) The dies, A and B, constructed as described, and adapted for forging an ox-shoe from a straight bar of metal, substantially as set forth. (3) The series of dies, A, B, D, and E, constructed as described, and adapted for forging and trimming an
The invention which was in fact made by the patentee consisted of two parts: (1) The outward and downward inclined face at each end of each die, A and B, and which is particularly described in the first claim. The defendants do not infringe this claim. (2) Prior to this invention of Pearce, the blank was subjected to one or more forging or bending operations before it was placed in the die, which gave it substantially the form of an ox-shoe. By his invention, a straight bar of heated iron having been placed in die, A, was subjected to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Eclipse Mach. Co. v. JH Specialty Mfg. Co.
...claim. Tinker v. Wilber Eureka M. & R. Mfg. Co., 1 F. 138, 139; Frazer v. Gates & Scoville Iron Works (C. C.) 22 F. 439, 442; Gunn v. Savage (C. C.) 30 F. 366, 369; Windle v. Parks & Woolson Mach. Co. (C. C. A.) 134 F. The reliance being on the drawings, and the specification containing no ......
-
Permutit Co v. Graver Corporation
...Co., 160 U. S. 110, 116, 16 S. Ct. 240, 40 L. Ed. 358; Tinker v. Wilber Eureka Mower & Reaper Mfg. Co. (C. C.) 1 F. 138, 139; Gunn v. Savage (C. C.) 30 F. 366, 369; Windle v. Parks & Woolson Machine Co. (C. C. A.) 134 F. 381, 384, 385. 10 Merrill v. Yeomans, 94 U. S. 568, 573, 24 L. Ed. 235......
-
Karl Kiefer Mach Co. v. Heyman
... ... 236, 98 C. C. A. 144. Others are ... referred to, and many more could be. Cases relating wholly to ... the sufficiency of description are Gunn v. Savage ... (C.C.) 30 F. 366; Windle v. Parks & Woolson M ... Co., 134 F. 381, 67 C.C.A. 363; Herman v. Youngstown ... Car Mfg. Co., 191 ... ...
-
Davis-Bournonville Co. v. Alexander Milburn Co.
...show them to be such. The defendant argues that one may not look to the drawings to supply a defect in the specifications. Gunn v. Savage (C.C.) 30 F. 366; Windle v. & Woolson Mach. Co., 134 F. 381, 67 C.C.A. 363; Fulton Co. v. Powers Regulator Co. (C.C.A.) 263 F. 578, 581; George Cutter Co......