Klein v. City of Seattle
Decision Date | 06 October 1896 |
Docket Number | 287. |
Citation | 77 F. 200 |
Parties | KLEIN v. CITY OF SEATTLE. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Gavin McNab, Byers & Byers, and Battle & Shipley, for plaintiff in error.
Frank A. Steele and John K. Brown, for defendant in error.
Before GILBERT and ROSS, Circuit Judges, and HAWLEY, District Judge.
This is an action brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error to recover damages for infringement of letters patent No. 297,699, issued to the plaintiff on the 20th of April, 1884, for an improvement in pins for holding insulators supporting electric wires. The case was tried before the court, without a jury, in accordance with a stipulation in conformity with the provisions of section 649 of the Revised Statutes. It is presented to this court upon special findings of fact found by the circuit court. 63 F 702. The court held the patent to be void for want for novelty and invention, and entered judgment in favor of defendant for its costs. Is this judgment sustained by the findings of fact? This is the only question presented for review. Trust Co. v. Wood, 8 C.C.A. 658, 60 F. 346 348, and authorities there cited; Blanchard v. Bank, 21 C.C.A. 319, 75 F. 249; Grayson v. Lynch, 163 U.S 468, 472, 16 Sup.Ct. 1064.
The specifications of the patent are as follows:
'My invention relates to an improved pin or support for fixing and holding in place the glass insulators upon cross-arms of telegraph poles, and in other situations where an insulator support or attachment is required for an electric wire. As hereinafter more fully described, my improvement consists in providing an insulator pin of metal, having a head of larger diameter than the body of the pin, on which is a screw thread, or portion of a thread, of proper size, to be inserted into, and to engage with, the screw socket in the insulator.
(Image Omitted)
The claims of the patent are:
The application for a patent was made September 13, 1881. The state of the art at that time, as shown by the findings, was substantially as follows:
Glass insulators, screw threads on inside, were in common use in electrical appliances, for the purpose of attaching thereto the wires over which the electrical currents were conducted. These insulators were used by attaching the same to pins. The pins were attached to cross-arms, and the cross-arms were attached to poles or other objects, thereby forming the means of conducting electrical currents.
'The pins,' to quote from the findings, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
National Hollow Brake-Beam Co. v. Interchangeable Brake-Beam Co.
... ... 707; Olin v ... Timken, 155 U.S. 141, 155, 15 Sup.Ct. 49, 39 L.Ed. 100; ... Klein v. City of Seattle, 77 F. 200, 204, 23 C.C.A ... 114, 118, 44 U.S.App. 741, 748. But where the ... ...
-
Blanchard v. JL Pinkerton, Inc.
...was invention, or in arriving at its scope. McClain v. Ortmayer, 1891, 141 U.S. 419, 428, 12 S.Ct. 76, 35 L. Ed. 800; Klein v. City of Seattle, 9 Cir., 1896, 77 F. 200, 204; Grayson Heat Control v. Los Angeles etc. Co., 9 Cir., 1943, 134 F.2d 478, 481; Marconi Wireless Co. v. United States,......
-
Pevely Dairy Co. v. Borden Printing Co., 9744.
...the size of Spellman's device. Whether it does or not is unimportant, for mere change in size does not constitute invention. Klein v. Seattle, 9 Cir., 77 F. 200, 204; Keszthelyi v. Doheny Stone Drill Co., 9 Cir., 59 F.2d 3, 8; Oliver-Sherwood Co. v. Patterson-Ballagh Corp., 9 Cir., 95 F.2d ......
-
American Sales Book Co. v. Bullivant
...use is evidence of its utility; it is not conclusive even of that,-- much less of its patentable novelty.' In Klein v. City of Seattle, 23 C.C.A. 114, 77 F. 200, 204, this court 'The fact that a patented device has gone into general use, and has displaced other devices, is evidence of its v......