Roemer v. Peddie Same v. Headley Same v. Kupper Same v. Jenkinson
Decision Date | 09 December 1889 |
Citation | 132 U.S. 313,33 L.Ed. 382,10 S.Ct. 98 |
Parties | ROEMER v. PEDDIE et al. 1 SAME v. HEADLEY. SAME v. KUPPER. SAME v. JENKINSON |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
A. V. Briesen, for appellants.
Frederic H. Betts, and J. E. Hindon Hyde, for appellees.
These are two suits in equity, brought by William Roemer in the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York,—one against Thomas B. Peddie and George B. Jenkinson, and the other against Albert O. Headley; and two suits in equity, brought by the same plaintiff, in the circuit court of the United States for the district of New Jersey,—one against Charles Kupper, and the other against Richard C. Jenkinson. All four of the suits are brought for the infringement of letters patent No. 195,233, granted to the plaintiff September 18, 1877, for an improvement in a combined lock and handle for traveling bags. The specification says: The claim of the patent is as follows: 'The lock case made with the notched sides, a a, near its ends, to receive and hold the handle rings, B, substantially as herein shown and described.' In the application for the patent as filed, the parts above put in brackets were not contained in the specification, and the proposed claim was as follows: 'The combination of the lock case, A, having the hooks, b, at its ends, with the rings, B B, which are hele in place by said hooks, substantially as herein shown and described.' The application, as thus made, was rejected by a reference to patent No. 177,020, granted May 2, 1876, to William Simon, for improvements in a traveling bag. The proposed claim was then stricken out, and the following claim was substituted: 'The lock case, A, having the notches, a a, at its under side, and combined with the rings, B B, which are held in said notches, substantially as and for the purpose specified.' The application was again rejected by a reference to the patent to Simon, the patent-office saying: 'The difference between the two devices appears to be that in applicant's device the notches are cut in the vertical sides of the lock case, and in the reference they are struck up from the bottom plate.' The application was then amended by inserting in the specification the words above put in brackets, and by altering the claim so as to read as it does in the patent as issued.
After an answer and a replication in the suit against Peddie and Jenkinson, proofs were taken on both sides, and the court, held by Judge WHEELER, made a decree dismissing the bill with costs. In the opinion of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
National Hollow Brake-Beam Co. v. Interchangeable Brake-Beam Co.
... ... CHICAGO RY. EQUIPMENT CO. v. SAME. No. 1,416. United States Court of Appeals, ... rejected. Roemer v. Peddie, 132 U.S. 313, 317, 10 ... Sup.Ct ... ...
-
Altoona Publix Theatres v. Americancorporation Wilmer Vincent Corporation v. Americancorporation
...were abandoned in order to obtain the patent. Shepard v. Carrigan, 116 U.S. 593, 597, 6 S.Ct. 493, 29 L.Ed. 723; Roemer v. Peddie, 132 U.S. 313, 317, 10 S.Ct. 98, 33 L.Ed. 382; Royer v. Coupe, 146 U.S. 524, 532, 13 S.Ct. 166, 36 L.Ed. 1073; Corbin Cabinet Lock Co. v. Eagle Lock Co., 150 U.S......
-
Henry J. Kaiser Company v. McLouth Steel Corp.
...v. Carrigan, 116 U.S. 593 6 S.Ct. 493, 29 L.Ed. 723; Sutter v. Robinson, 119 U.S. 530 7 S.Ct. 376, 30 L.Ed. 492; Roemer v. Peddie, 132 U.S. 313 10 S. Ct. 98, 33 L.Ed. 382; Phoenix Caster Co. v. Spiegel, 133 U.S. 360 10 S.Ct. 409, 33 L.Ed. 663; Hubbell v. United States, 179 U.S. 77 21 S.Ct. ......
-
Carson v. American Smelting & Refining Co.
... ... and process in the second patent express the same inventive ... [293 F. 776] ... John ... U.S. 541, 7 Sup.Ct. 376, 30 L.Ed. 492; Roemer v ... Peddie, 132 U.S. 313, 10 Sup.Ct. 98, 33 ... ...
-
Chapter §15.05 Disclaimer or Disavowal
...at 1325–1326.[308] Omega, 334 F.3d at 1323.[309] Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 856 F.3d 1353, 1359 (2017) (citing Roemer v. Peddie, 132 U.S. 313, 317 (1889) (stating that "when a patentee, on the rejection of his application, inserts in his specification, in consequence, limitations a......