Railroad Company v. Mellon
| Decision Date | 01 October 1881 |
| Citation | Railroad Company v. Mellon, 104 U.S. 112, 26 L.Ed. 639 (1881) |
| Parties | RAILROAD COMPANY v. MELLON |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
On Oct. 2, 1866, letters-patent No. 58,447 were granted to Edward Mellon for an improvement in the mode of attaching tires to the wheels of locomotives.For the purpose of illustration, three figures, numbered respectively 1, 2, and 3, were appended to the specification on which the application for the letters was based.The specification is as follows:—— 'Figures 1 and 2 are central sectons of a locomotive wheel having a tire applied to it according to my invention.Figure 3, a section of a portion of a locomotive wheel having its tire affected by wear, drawn with a view of showing the advantage of one feature of my invention.Similar letters of reference indicate like parts.
'This invention has for its object the securing of tires on the wheels of locomotives without the aid of bolts, and in such a manner that the tire, in case of becoming loose, cannot casually slip off from the wheel.
'The tire B is shrunk on the periphery of the wheel A, as usual, and it will be seen that the flange a prevents the tire, should it become loose on the wheel A, from slipping off at the inner side of the wheel, and the flange b of the tire will of course prevent the latter from slipping off at the outer side of the wheel.
'By this arrangement no bolts or set screws are required to aid in fastening the tire on the wheel, for it is impossible for the tire to leave the wheel either at the right or left side thereof.
'The same result may be attained by having the surface of the tire at its outer edge provided with a flange, a', as shown at the upper part of Figure 2.
'After the wheel, as completed, has been in use a certain length of time, the tire will stretch and thus become loose on the wheel; then the pressure of the resistance against the rail will bear or force the tire inward against the flange a of the wheel.
'Now, it is not intended to run the engine unnecessarily with a loose tire, but should this tire become loose while on the road, there is sufficient safety in running the engine until the depot is reached, or until it will be convenient to repair or replace it by a new one.
'The tire can be readily slipped off, there being no rivets or other fastenings to undo, and the convenience and utility of my improvement is apparent.
'I am aware of the invention described in patent to N. Hodge, Nov. 18, 1851, but I wish it to be understood that I do not claim the invention therein described, viz. the angular flange upon the inner edge of the wheel and the flange upon the outer edge of the wheel, but I do claim as my invention the wheel with the curved flange upon the inner edge in combination with a tire with a rounded corner to fit said curved flange, as set forth.'
The application for letters-patent, as is shown by the filewrapper, was made Oct. 6, 1865.It was twice rejected; the last time on April 23, 1866.
The bill in this case charged that the letters-patent had been infringed by the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, the defendant, and it prayed for an injunction and an account of profits.
The answer of the company denied that Mellon was the first inventor of the mode of attaching tires to wheels of locomotives, described in his letters-patent, and it also set up former letters-patent and publications, bearing date many years before his alleged invention, and showing, as was claimed, tires and wheels such as the company use.
Among them are letters-patent No. 8526, granted to Nehemiah Hodge, Nov. 18, 1851, for a new and useful improvement in railroad car wheels.One of the drawings (that designated as Figure 2) annexed to his specification on which the letters-patent were granted shows a flange or shoulder from the rim of the wheel-centre projecting over and overlapping the tire.
The answer, by way of further defence, denied infringement.
The Circuit Court upon final hearing found against the company upon both issues made by the answer, perpetually enjoined it from further infringement, and directed an account of profits to be taken.Upon the coming in of the master's report a...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Zoltek Corp. v. United States
...an invention to be “described in and covered by a patent,” the invention must be claimed in the patent. See Lehigh Valley R.R. Co v. Mellon, 104 U.S. 112, 119, 26 L.Ed. 639 (1881) (“[T]he scope of letters-patent should be limited to the invention covered by the claim....”); see also Patent ......
-
Reece Button-Hole Mach Co. v. Globe Button-Hole Mach Co., 72.
... ... not everything, demanded by the Reece Buttonhole Machine ... Company in the case at bar, and was entitled to a patent ... therefor; and the question is whether, by ... statute provisions the existence or re-enactment of which the ... defense can rely on. Railroad Co. v. Mellon, 104 ... U.S. 112, 118. The specifications in Winans v. Denmead ... described only ... ...
-
I.T.S. Rubber Co. v. Essex Rubber Co.
... ... Jansen, 52 F. 823; Manufacturing Co. v ... Housman, 58 F. 870; Davock v. Railroad Co., ... 69 F. 468; Henderson v. Thompkins, 60 F. 758.' ... See, ... also, the ... Co. v ... Phoenix Iron Co., 95 U.S. 274, 278, 24 L.Ed. 344; ... Railroad Co. v. Mellon, 104 U.S. 112, 118, 26 L.Ed ... 639; Merrill v. Yeomans, 94 U.S. 568, 24 L.Ed. 235; ... ...
-
Decker v. Federal Trade Commission
...the claim, and though the claim may be illustrated, it cannot be enlarged by the language of the specification. Railroad Co. v. Mellon, 1881, 104 U.S. 112, 118, 26 L.Ed. 639; McClain v. Ortmayer, 1891, 141 U.S. 419, 424, 12 S.Ct. 76, 35 L.Ed. A claim, in the patent law, has a technical mean......