Seabury v. Johnson

Decision Date18 September 1896
CitationSeabury v. Johnson, 76 F. 456 (D. N.J. 1896)
PartiesSEABURY et al. v. JOHNSON et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

Edwin H. Brown and James C. Chapin, for complainants.

C. E Mitchell and H. B. Brownell, for defendants.

GREENDistrict Judge.

The complainants have brought this suit to restrain the defendants from infringing letters patent of the United States granted to one Charles H. Shaw, for a 'new and useful improvement in disinfectants. ' The letters patent are dated October 2, 1888, and are numbered 390,314.Practically, the invention is for a particular form of a 'sulphur candle.'In describing his invention, Mr Shaw, in the specifications, referring to the accompanying diagram or drawing, says 'The candle in this example of my improvement has a body a, of cylindric form, provided on the upper side, at about the center, with a nipple or projection, a'.Around the body, a, extends a band, b, which is preferably made of metal, and extends slightly above the top of said body, in order that it may prevent the flowing over of any liquified sulphur upon any article on which the candle may be placed and burned.This band may simply be retained by friction in place around the body, or it may be secured in any other suitable manner.There may be a plate of metal beneath the bottom of the body, a, of the candle, if desirable, and, in case such a plate should be employed, it might be secured to the lower edge of the band, b. The candle in this example of my improvement is shown as being of large diameter compared with its length or height, and it is desirable to make it in this way in order that a large surface of the sulphur shall be exposed for combustion.I employ a wick or wicking consisting of threads of fibers of combustible material, distributed throughout the entire body, a, of the candle, or the entire upper portion of the body, as well as the nipple or projection, a'. I have represented such thread or fiber by short lines in Fig. 2, and marked such lines with the letter 'c.'Obviously, a candle embodying my improvement may be made in other shapes; as, for instance, square or approximately square, or of other polygonal contour.'

(Image Omitted)The advantages resulting from this improvement are summed up by the inventor in these words:

'A candle embodying my improvement will burn slowly, and without entailing any serious danger of conflagration.'

Two claims are made, but only the first is involved in this suit.It is as follows:

'(1) A sulphur candle, provided with a surrounding band of metal, projecting slightly above the upper side or end of the main portion or body of said candle, substantially as described.'

It is insisted that the infringement of this patent by the defendants has been clearly proved.The 'candle' manufactured by the complainants, and protected by the letters patent referred to, may be described as a mass of sulphur, preferably cylindrical in shape, having a woven or twisted wicking, about which the sulphur rises into a star-shaped nipple, surrounded by a metal band, the edge of which projects above the mass of the sulphur, as distinguished from the nipple, sufficiently to prevent the overflow of the sulphur when fused in the process of burning.The device of the defendants, which is alleged to be infringing, is also a mass of sulphur having at the center a circular wick, which is placed in a circular groove sunken in the body of the sulphur, the bottom of which is distinctly lower than the surrounding sides of the box in which the candle is fixed; the box, itself, however, not being of metal, but made of paper.

Does the manufacture of the defendants infringe that of the complainants?To answer this question, it is necessary to analyze the claim of the patent now in litigation.It contains four distinct features or limitations: (1) A sulphur candle, (2) having a projecting central nipple, (3) provided with a surrounding metal band, (4)...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex
2 cases
  • Columbus Chain Co. v. Standard Chain Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • October 20, 1906
    ...15 F. 106; Western & Wells Co. v. Rosenstock (C.C.) 30 F. 67; Kinzel v. Luttrall Brick Co. et al., 67 F. 926, 15 C.C.A. 82; Seabury v. Johnson (C.C.) 76 F. 456; Schrieber Conchar Mfg. Co. v. Adams, 117 F. 830, 54 C.C.A. 128; Hale v. World Mfg. Co., 127 F. 964, 62 C.C.A. 596. On the other ha......
  • Schreiber & Conchar Mfg. Co. v. Adams Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • September 15, 1902
    ...24 L.Ed. 235; Burns v. Meyer, 100 U.S. 671, 25 L.Ed. 738; Sutter v. Robinson, 119 U.S. 530, 7 Sup.Ct. 376, 30 L.Ed. 492. In Seabury v. Johnson (C.C.) 76 F. 456, the claim '(1) A sulphur candle, provided with a surrounding band of metal, projecting slightly above the upper side or end of the......