Hicks v. Kelsey
| Decision Date | 01 October 1873 |
| Citation | 21 L.Ed. 852,85 U.S. 670,18 Wall. 670 |
| Parties | HICKS v. KELSEY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois; the case being this:
Hicks obtained a patent for an improved wagon-reach, and filed a bill against Kelsey, charging infringement and praying the usual relief. The defendant answered, denying the novelty of the alleged invention, and also denying infringement.
The thing called a 'wagon-reach'—that is to say, a pole or shaft connecting the front and rear axles of wagons or carriages, and having an upward crook or curve in it, so as to allow the front wheel, which, when a carriage is turned, goes against the reach if straight, to pass under it—had confessedly long been made, and was public property. These had been made of wood, necessarily for the sake of strength of a certain thickness, and consisted of one piece, strengthened by straps of iron attached to each side of the reach. The supposed improvement of the plaintiff consisted precisely and only in leaving out the wood in the curve and bolting the iron straps together, whereby the curve became all iron and less bulky, but in all other respects having the same shape and performing the same office as before. About all this there was no dispute whatever. Instead of being bolted together, the straps might be welded so as to make the curve consist of solid iron.
The question was whether this change of material—making the curve of iron instead of wood and iron—was a sufficient change to constitute invention,—the purpose being the same (namely, to turn the wheel under the body of the wagon), the means of accomplishing it being the same (namely, by a curved reach), and the form of the reach and mode of operation being the same.
Witnesses were examined, whose testimony went to show that the iron reach had advantages over those of mere wood, or of wood and iron. One said that of thirty-five, which he had made in about two years, none had come back broken, or needing repairs; that this was not the case with the old sort.
Another said:
'My experience is that, in those made of wood and iron, the wood between the iron plates in summer contracts and loosens the bolts.'
Another said:
The court below decided that plainly there was nothing but a change of material, and that this—the purpose, means of accomplishment, form of the instrument, mode of operation, being all as in the old reach—was not a sufficient change to constitute invention. It accordingly dismissed the bill. From its action herein this appeal was taken.
Mr. S. A. Goodwin, for the appellant:
This invention does not consist in the mere substitution of a particular material for other material which had been previously used for the same purpose and in the same way. The invention consists in the production of a certain described article by a certain described mechanical process, which process, viewed as a whole, is new in itself. That process is, the making an ordinary wooden reach of two separate parts, in splicing those parts at the front and rear ends by a particular and new mechanical arrangement to a curved metallic intermediary splice, made substantially solid in two plates, or one casting, so that a new article is produced by a new mechanical arrangement or device,—a new curved reach. This article has added advantages and increased utility over the old wooden curved reach improved upon. They are shown in the proofs. Indeed, the matter is intelligible without proofs. The curved reach is indispensable, to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seismograph Service Corp. v. Offshore Raydist
...604, 4 S.Ct. 580, 28 L.Ed. 532; Slawson v. Grand Street P. P. & F. R. Co., 107 U.S. 649, 2 S.Ct. 663, 27 L.Ed. 576; Hicks v. Kelsey, 18 Wall 670, 85 U.S. 670, 21 L.Ed. 852. 7 Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb, 2 Cir., 224 F. 2d 8 Claims 2 and 4 of the Honore patent, which are the claims in suit, read: ......
-
Procter & Gamble Co. v. Paragon Trade Brands, Inc.
...and useful result, an increase of efficiency, or a decided saving in the operation, is clearly attained." Hicks v. Kelsey, 18 Wall. 670, 673, 85 U.S. 670, 673, 21 L.Ed. 852 (1873). Lawson's liquid impermeable flaps have a completely different functionality from Enloe's liquid pervious flaps......
-
Rengo Co. Ltd. v. Molins Mach. Co.
..."negative rules" to test the patentability of a combination of old elements. The Eighth Circuit, reflecting Hicks v. Kelsey, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 670, 673, 21 L.Ed. 852 (1874), had required a "new or different result," 13 while, in an earlier decision, the Fifth Circuit had required merely th......
-
Hall Laboratories v. Economics Laboratory
...obtain the privileged position of a patent more ingenuity must be involved than the work of a mechanic skilled in the art. Hicks v. Kelsey, 18 Wall. 670, 21 L.Ed. 852; Slawson v. Grand Street R. Co., 107 U.S. 649, 17 Otto 649, 2 S.Ct. 663, 27 L.Ed. 576; Phillips v. Detroit, 111 U.S. 604, 4 ......
-
James F. Mcdonough Iii, the Myth of the Patent Troll: an Alternative View of the Function of Patent Dealers in an Idea
...(2000). 313 U.S. CONST. art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 8. 314 Sinclair Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 330 (1945) (citing Hicks v. Kelsey, 85 U.S. 670 (1873)); see Marconi Wireless Tel. Co. v. United States, 320 U.S. 1 (1943); 35 U.S.C. Sec. 102-03 (2000). 315 35 U.S.C. Sec. 261. A patentee ......