Russell v. Dodge
| Decision Date | 01 October 1876 |
| Citation | 93 U.S. 460,23 L.Ed. 973 |
| Parties | RUSSELL v. DODGE |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York.
Mr. Horace E. Smith for the appellant.
Mr. T. L. Wakefield, contra.
This is a suit for an infringement of a patent, obtained by the complainant for an alleged new and useful improvement in the preparation of leather, with a prayer that the defendant be decreed to account for and pay to him the gains and profits derived by them from making, using, and vending the improvement, and be enjoined from further infringement. The court below dismissed the bill, and the complainant appealed to this court.
The patent bears date in February, 1870, and was issued upon a surrender and cancellation of a previous patent obtained by the complainant in August, 1869, upon the allegation that the original patent was inoperative and invalid by reason of an insufficient and defective specification of the improvement. The validity of the reissued patent is assailed on the ground that it describes a different invention from that claimed in the original patent, and for want of novelty in the invention. Other grounds of invalidity are also stated; but, in the view we take of the case, they will not require consideration.
In the schedule accompanying the patent, giving a description of the alleged invention, and constituting a part of the instrument, the complainant declares that he has 'invented a new and useful improvement in the preparation of leather;' that 'the invention consists in a novel preparation of what is known as bark-tanned lamb or sheep skin,' by which the article is rendered soft and free, and adapted, among other uses, for the manufacture of what are termed 'dog-skin gloves;' and that 'the principal feature of the invention consists in the employment of what is known among tanners and others as 'fat liquor,' which is ordinarily obtained by scouring deer-skin after tanning in oil,' but which may be produced by the cutting of oil with a suitable alkali. The schedule then proceeds to state that in treating the leather with fat liquor 'it is desirable to heat the liquor to or near the boiling-point, and that it is preferred to use the same in connection with other ingredients,' such as soda, common salt, and soap, in specified quantities for each ten gallons of the heated liquor; and that 'to effect the treatment' the skin should be well dipped in or saturated with the fat liquor or compound, of which fat liquor is the base. The schedule closes by a declaration that what the patentee claimed and desired to be secured by letters-patent was,——
1. 'The employment of fat liquor in the treatment of leather substantially as specified.'
2. 'The process, substantially as herein described, of treating bark-tanned lamb or sheep skin by means of a compound composed and applied essentially as specified.'
It is clear from this statement that the patent is for the use of fat liquor in any condition, hot or cold, in the treatment of leather, and for a procees of treating bark-tanned lamb or sheep skin, by means of a compound in which fat liquor is the principal ingredient. The state of the liquor is not mentioned as essential to the treatment, or to accomplish any of the results sought. It is only stated as a thing to be desired, that the liquor should be heated, and that it would be preferable that other ingredients were mixed with the heated liquor to make the compound mentioned. In other words, the specification declares, that by heating the liquor the effect desired will be more readily produced; that is, more speedily or with less trouble and expense, not that the heating is in any respect essential to the treatment. Where a useful result is produced in any art, manufacture, or composition of matter by the use of certain means for which the inventor or discoverer obtains a patent, it is, as justly observed by the presiding justice of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
General Electric Co. v. Hygrade Sylvania Corporation
...of LeBel's original patent application and his application for a reissue patent, the following quotation from Russell v. Dodge, 93 U.S. 460 at page 464, 23 L.Ed. 973, seems apposite: "The evident object of the patentee in seeking a reissue was not to correct any defects in specification or ......
-
Marine Polymer Techs., Inc. v. Hemcon, Inc.
...or the omission of important particulars, so as to enlarge the scope of the invention as originally claimed.” Russell v. Dodge, 93 U.S. 460, 463–64, 23 L.Ed. 973 (1876). Such language does not control this case, which does not deal with the introduction of new matter or the omission of impo......
-
Daniel v. O. & M. MFG. CO.
...Co. v. Eagle Lock Co., 150 U.S. 38, 42, 43, 14 S.Ct. 28, 37 L.Ed. 989; Ball v. Langles, 102 U.S. 128, 26 L.Ed. 104, 105; Russell v. Dodge, 93 U.S. 460, 23 L.Ed. 973. Claims 2 through 8 of the Salzer re-issue patent are invalid for the further reason that as a re-issue patent it was improper......
-
Moist Cold Refrigerator Co. v. Lou Johnson Co., 13811.
...Co. v. Yale Lock Co., 123 U.S. 87, 8 S.Ct. 38, 31 L.Ed. 100; Coon v. Wilson, 113 U.S. 268, 5 S.Ct. 537, 28 L.Ed. 963; Russell v. Dodge, 93 U.S. 460, 23 L.Ed. 973; Dill Mfg. Co. v. J. W. Speaker Corp., D.C., 83 F. Supp. 21; Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. James, C.C., 20 F. 10 American Steel Foundries......