Phillips v. City of Detroit
Decision Date | 05 May 1884 |
Citation | 28 L.Ed. 532,111 U.S. 604,4 S.Ct. 580 |
Parties | PHILLIPS and another, Ex'rs, etc. v. CITY OF DETROIT |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Geo. H. Lothrop, for appellants.
D. C. Holbrook, E. A. West, and L. L. Bond, for appellees.
This was a suit in equity brought by Robert C. Phillips, Eugene Robinson, and Jesse H. Farwell, who were the exclusive licensees of Phillips for the state of Michigan, to restrain the defendant, the city of Detroit, from infringing letters patent granted to Phillips, December 5, 1871, for 'a new and useful improvement in street and other highway pavements.' The specification and claim of the patent were as follows: he answer of the defendant admitted that it had caused to be laid a pavement, such as is described in the patent of the complainants, and by way of defense alleged want of novelty in the improvement covered by the patent. Upon final hearing the circuit court dismissed the bill on the ground that, in view of the state of the art, the patent did not describe any patentable invention. From this decree the complainants appealed.
We think the decree of the circuit court was right. The patent purports to be for a combination. The alleged combination consists in a pavement formed by blocks of wood cut from the trunks or branches of trees, set with their fibers vertical upon a bed of broken stone, sand, or gravel, the spaces between the blocks being filled with sand or gravel. The kind of wood of which the blocks are composed, and their length and diameter, are immaterial. The placing of the blocks with their fibers vertical is shown to be an old method long antedating the patent, and is so obviously the only practicable mode of placing them that its suggestion in the patent cannot be called invention. The specification expressly disclaims, as a part of the patent, the use of wooden blocks in the state in which they are cut from the tree or its branches, the foundation of stone or gravel, and the filling of the spaces between the blocks with sand or gravel, separately considered. The only thing, therefore, left for the patent to cover is the bringing together of these three old and well-known elements in the construction of a pavement; namely, the wooden blocks, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Northern Securities Company v. United States
...v. Maryland, 21 Wall. 456, 469, 22 L. ed. 678, 683; Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37, 42, 23 L. ed. 200, 202; Phillips v. Detroit, 111 U. S. 604, 606, 28 L. ed. 532, 533, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 580; Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 145 U. S. 192, 201, 36 L. ed. 672, 675, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 87, 12......
-
Seismograph Service Corp. v. Offshore Raydist
...Co., 282 U.S. 704, 51 S.Ct. 232, 75 L.Ed. 634; Morris v. McMillin, 112 U.S. 244, 5 S.Ct. 218, 28 L.Ed. 702; Phillips v. Detroit, 111 U.S. 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.......
-
FA Smith Mfg. Co. v. Samson-United Corporation, 298.
...563, 566; Toledo Pressed Steel Co. v. Standard Parts, infra; Cuno Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., infra; Phillips v. Detroit, 111 U.S. 604, 607, 608, 4 S. Ct. 580, 28 L.Ed. 532; Concrete Appliances Co. v. Gomery, 269 U.S. 177, 46 S.Ct. 42, 70 L.Ed. 4 Cf. Picard v. United Aircraft Corp., 2......
-
Handel Co. v. Jefferson Glass Co.
... ... H. E ... Dunlap, of Wheeling, W. Va., and Dodson & Roe, of New York ... City, for complainant ... J. M ... Ritz and John A. Howard, both of Wheeling, W. Va., and ... 225, 27 L.Ed. 438; ... Knapp v. Morss, 150 U.S. 221, 14 Sup.Ct. 81, 37 ... L.Ed. 1059; Phillips v. Detroit, 111 U.S. 604, 4 ... Sup.Ct. 580, 28 L.Ed. 532; Mast, Foos & Co. v. Stover ... Mfg ... ...
-
Ordinary creativity in patent law: the artist within the scientist.
...is insufficient. There must be something akin to genius,--an effort of the brain as well as the hand."); Phillips v. City of Detroit, 111 U.S. 604, 607 (1884) (patent was invalid where "[i]t involve[d] merely the skill of the workman and not the genius of the inventor"); Watson v. Cincinnat......