Manning v. Cape Ann Isinglass Glue Co
Decision Date | 07 May 1883 |
Citation | 27 L.Ed. 793,2 S.Ct. 860,108 U.S. 462 |
Parties | MANNING and another v. CAPE ANN ISINGLASS & GLUE CO. and others |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This was a suit brought by the appellants, John J. Manning and Caleb J. Norwood, to restrain the infringement by the appellees of letters patent dated January 7, 1873, issued to the appellants and W. N. Manning, as assignees of the inventor, James Manning. By the subsequent assignment of W. N. Manning the appellants became vested with the title to the entire patent. It is well known that the swimming bladders or sounds of certain fishes are largely composed of that variety of gelatin called isinglass. The sounds are usually found in the market in a dry and hard state. They are manufactured into insinglass by a mechanical operation, which consists in passing the macerated sound successively between several sets of rollers, the first set kneading the sounds into a homogeneous sheet, and the subsequent sets squeezing and elongating the sheets into the ribbons of isinglass known to commerce. The invention covered by the patent sued on was for 'an improvement in the manufacture of isinglass from fish-sounds.' The specification of the patent declared as follows:
'My invention is designed to obviate the return of the adhering gelatinous substance to the action of the rolls before it is stripped therefrom, and to so strip it that the rolls may work continuously or without stoppage; the ribbon, as it is stopped, being again fed or guided by the operator into and between the rolls until sufficiently reduced or elongated for removal or for the action of other rolls set nearer together to produce a thinner ribbon.
'To effect this result I place at the side of each roll a scraper extending the whole length of the roll, and having an edge set up to the roll, so that the roll shall run just clear of it, which scraper or cleaner strips from the whole surface of the roll the adhering gelatine in the form of a sheet.
'The invention consists in this method of passing the isinglass between hollow rolls, cooled by water thrown into the rolls, and then stripping the gelatinous matter from the rollers and returning it to the hopper to be again treated, the rollers being adjustable.'
The claim was as follows:
'The herein described method of converting isinglass into sheets of any desired thickness by running it between hollow rolls into which cold water is thrown to cool the compressing surfaces, such rolls being preferably made adjustable to graduate the degree of compression, and the adhering sheets being removed from the rolls by stationary scrapers or clearers and returned to the hopper as required.'
One of the defenses set up in the answer and relied on was that the improvement described in the patent had been in public use for more than two years before the patent was applied for. The circuit court dismissed the bill on that ground. From its decree this appeal is prosecuted by the complainants.
Thos. Wm. Clarke, for appellants.
Geo. L. Roberts, for appellees.
We think that the defense, that the improvement described in the patent had been in public use for more than two years prior to the application therefor, is established by the testimony.
The appellants contend that the patent covers an improvement in the process of making isinglass. It is not contended that the patent covers the rolls between which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lough v. Brunswick Corp.
...[as public uses]."); City of Elizabeth v. Pavement Co., 97 U.S. 126, 133, 24 L.Ed. 1000 (1877); Manning v. Cape Ann Isinglass & Glue Co., 108 U.S. 462, 465, 2 S.Ct. 860, 863, 27 L.Ed. 793 (1883) ("The decided weight of the evidence shows that there was also a public use of the invention..........
-
Electric Storage Battery Co v. Shimadzu
...supra, 94 U.S. page 94, 24 L.Ed. 68; Egbert v. Lippmann, 104 U.S. 333, 336, 26 L.Ed. 755. 35 Manning v. Cape Ann Isinglass & Glue Co., 108 U.S. 462, 465, 2 S.Ct. 860, 862, 27 L.Ed. 793; Twyman v. Radiant Glass Co., supra; Paraffine Co. v. Everlast, supra, 84 F.2d pages 338, 339. 36 Compare ......
-
ELECTRIC STORAGE BATTERY CO. v. SHIMADZU
...Fruit-Jar Co. v. Wright, supra, 94 U.S. page 94; Egbert v. Lippmann, 104 U.S. 333, 336. Footnote 35 Manning v. Cape Ann Isinglass & Glue Co., 108 U.S. 462, 465, 2 S. Ct. 860, 862; Twyman v. Radiant Glass Co., supra; Paraffine Co. v. Everlast, supra, 84 F.2d pages 338, 339. Footnote 36 Compa......
-
Hentschel v. Carthage Sulphite Pulp Co.
... ... U.S., 160 U.S ... 426, 430, 16 Sup.Ct. 322, 40 L.Ed. 480; Manning v. Cape ... Ann Isinglass, etc., 108 U.S. 462, 2 Sup.Ct. 860, 27 ... In ... Manning v. Cape Ann Isinglass & Glue Co., 108 U.S. 462, ... 465, 2 Sup.Ct. 860, 863, 27 L.Ed. 793, the court ... ...
-
Putting the "public" Back in "public Use" Interpreting the 2011 Leahy-smith America Invents Act
...is not a public use within the meaning of the statute. Id. at 336.85. Id. at 337.86. Id.87. See Manning v. Cape Ann Isinglass & Glue Co., 108 U.S. 462 (1883) (holding patent on a method of converting fish bladders made of gelatin, isinglass, into thin hard sheets was invalid). The Court fou......