Ide v. Ball Engine Co
Decision Date | 10 May 1893 |
Docket Number | No. 227,227 |
Parties | IDE v. BALL ENGINE CO. et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This was a suit in equity by Albert L. Ide against the Ball Engine Company and others for the infringement of a patent. The court below dismissed the bill, (39 Fed. Rep. 548,) and complainant appeals. Affirmed.
Statement by Mr. Justice BROWN:
This was a bill in equity for the infringement of letters patent No. 301,720, issued July 8, 1884, to the plaintiff, Ide, for a steam-engine governor. Another patent, No. 308,498, issued to the same party November 25, 1884, was originally embraced in the bill, but upon the trial in the court below the charge relative to this patent was not pressed, and the case was rested wholly upon No. 301,720.
'This invention,' said the patentee, in his specification, 'relates to that class of steamengine governors known as 'fly-wheel governors,' and has for its primary object to provide means for holding the eccentric steadily in its proper poised position, in opposition to the tendency of certain extraneous forces which are calculated to disturb the movements of the valve as sought to be determined by the balanced forces of weights and springs when the engine is in motion.
After giving a description of the device by reference to the drawings, the patentee added: , are prevented, and, as a consequence, the governor will have a steady and efficient action at all speeds of the pulley or wheel to which said governor is applied. * * * The dashpot, while preferably connected with the end of the lever, E, may obviously be attached to the eccentric itself, and to a fixed or less movable part of the apparatus.'
The single claim of the patent was as follows: 'In a fly-wheel governor, the combination, with relatively moving parts, of a dashpot, substantially as described.'
The defendants set up in their answer the invalidity of the patent by reason of prior use, and also noninfringement. Upon a hearing in the court below upon pleadings and proofs the bill was dismissed upon the ground of want of novelty, (39 Fed. Rep. 548,) and plaintiff appealed to this court.
Chas. K. Offield, for appellant.
John K. Hallock, J. G. D. Gallaher, and J. C. Sturgeon, for appellees.
Mr. Justice BROWN, after stating the facts in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tropic-Aire, Inc. v. Cullen-Thompson Motor Co.
...of the combination is not patentable. Adams v. Bellaire Stamping Co., 141 U.S. 539, 12 S.Ct. 66, 35 L.Ed. 849; Ide v. Ball Engine Co., 149 U.S. 550, 13 S.Ct. 941, 37 L.Ed. 843. Neither is it invention to use an old machine for a new purpose. Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 23 L.Ed. 267; Weste......
-
Titeflex Metal Hose Co. v. Robertson, 5307.
...S. 419, 425, 12 S. Ct. 76, 35 L. Ed. 800; Grant v. Walter, 148 U. S. 547, 556, 13 S. Ct. 699, 37 L. Ed. 552; Ide v. Ball Engine Co., 149 U. S. 550, 13 S. Ct. 941, 37 L. Ed. 843. The tribunals of the Patent Office rejected the application on the ground that it did not involve invention to ap......
-
Freyn Engineering Co. v. Coe, 6335.
...S. 419, 425, 12 S. Ct. 76, 35 L. Ed. 800; Grant v. Walker, 148 U. S. 547, 556, 13 S. Ct. 699, 37 L. Ed. 552; Ide v. Ball Engine Co., 149 U. S. 550, 13 S. Ct. 941, 37 L. Ed. 843; Titeflex Metal Hose Co. v. Robertson, 61 App. D. C. 40, 57 F.(2d) 406. Where a doubt exists as to the question of......