White v. Dunbar

Citation30 L.Ed. 303,119 U.S. 47,7 S.Ct. 72
PartiesWHITE and others v. DUNBAR and others. 1
Decision Date15 November 1886
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Jos. P. Hornor, Chas. H. Joyce, and Wm. G. Henderson, for appellants, White and others.

Melville Church and J. B. Church, for appellees, Dunbar and others.

BRADLEY, J.

This is a suit on a reissued patent. The appellees obtained a patent dated June 20, 1876, for a method of preserving shrimps and other shell-fish by placing them in a bag or sack made of cotton, muslin, or other textile fabric, and then sealing them up in a metallic can, and subjecting them to a boiling process. In their specification they declare that the object of placing the shrimp in the bag is to keep them from coming in direct contact with the can, and thus prevent their discoloration and loss of flavor. They describe the process as follows: 'The shell having been removed from the shrimp in the usual manner, the fish is thrown into salt water of about six degrees, and there remains for an hour, more or less, and from thence to kettles filled with water, and brought to a boiling heat; after which they are placed on dippers, and cooled and thoroughly rinsed with fresh cold water; and from which, so soon as thoroughly dripped, in a moist condition, they are placed in the sack, B, the same having been previously arranged in the can, A and without the addition of any salted or otherwise prepared liquid. So soon as the sack is filled, the mouth thereof being properly secured, the lid or head, a, is placed in position on the can, A, and immediately sealed. The cans are then subjected to a steam bath, or placed in kettles containing boiling water, and boiled for two hours at the highest temperature attainable, and which completes the process.' The claim is then stated as follows: 'What we claim as new, and desire to secure by letters patent, is the herein-described method of preserving shrimps, etc., preventing their discoloration, which consists in placing textile fabric between the can and its contents, and then sealing the can, and subjecting the same to a boiling process, substantially as and for the purpose specified.'

In April, 1880, Pecor, one of the appellants, together with one Bartlett, obtained a patent for another method of preserving shrimps, by first lining the inside of the can with a coating of asphaltum cement, and then with paper coated with a solution of paraffine, or kindred substance. The can is then filled with shrimp, sealed up, and subjected to the boiling or steaming process, in the usual manner of canning vegetables and meats.

In April, 1881, the appellees surrendered their original patent, and applied for a reissue thereof, which was granted in December, 1881. In the new specification they describe their process to consist—First, providing the can with a lining to prevent direct contact of the shrimps with the metal; and, second, placing them in the lined can while they are in a dry or moist condition, and devoid of free liquid or gravy, sealing the can without adding any liquid to its contents, and cooking the contents of the can after sealing. They add that 'there is nothing arbitrary about the peculiar form and construction of the textile fabric lining, as other forms and arrangements might be substituted therefor;' and, again, 'B is the lining CONSTRUCTED PREFERABLY OF COTTON OR MUSlin.' the claim of the reissued patent is in the following words: 'What we claim as new, and desire to secure by letters patent, is, as an improvement in the art of preserving shrimps in metal cans, the mode of preventing the discoloration of the shrimps, which consists in interposing between the metal can and the shrimps an enveloping material for the shrimps, which is not itself capable of discoloring the shrimps, and then sealing the can, and subjecting the same and its contents to a boiling process, substantially as described.'

In March, 1882, the appellants commenced the canning of shrimps, and in their answer state that all the business of canning shrimps that they have ever done has been under the authority of the pate t granted to Pecor and Bartlett. They further described the process used by them as follows: 'The common tin cans being ready for packing, three pieces of paper, previously boiled in paraffine wax, or coated with same, are cut and placed in the can, so that one piece covers the bottom, another piece the sides, and a third piece the top of the contents when the can is filled. The shrimps are then picked raw, then washed, and thoroughly cooked for about twenty minutes, until fit to eat. They are then placed in the cans, which are soldered, and then put into a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
286 cases
  • MICROAIRE SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS LLC. v. ARTHREX INC.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
    • June 3, 2010
    ...of the law, to construe [the patent] in a manner different from the plain import of its terms.” Id. (quoting White v. Dunbar, 119 U.S. 47, 52, 7 S.Ct. 72, 30 L.Ed. 303 (1886)). [13] [14] [15] [16] Therefore, the Court begins its claims construction analysis with the words of the claim. Vitr......
  • Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • October 9, 1984
    ...have successfully designed around Roeder's claims, as they had a right to do. As the Supreme Court stated in White v. Dunbar, 119 U.S. 47, 52, 7 S.Ct. 72, 75, 30 L.Ed. 303 (1886): The claim is a statutory requirement, prescribed for the very purpose of making the patentee define precisely w......
  • Altoona Publix Theatres v. Americancorporation Wilmer Vincent Corporation v. Americancorporation
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 4, 1935
    ...neither claimed nor granted. Under the statute, it is the claims of the patent which define the invention. See White v. Dunbar, 119 U.S. 47, 51, 52, 7 S.Ct. 72, 30 L.Ed. 303; McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U.S. 419, 423—425, 12 S.Ct. 76, 35 L.Ed. 800; Paper Bag Patent Case (Continental Paper Bag ......
  • Autogiro Company of America v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • October 13, 1967
    ...an understanding thereof, the illustrative embodiments specified are not to be read into the claims. See White v. Dunbar, 1886, 119 U.S. 47, 51-52, 7 S.Ct. 72, 30 L.Ed. 303. The claims alone define what is covered by the patent. See Kuhne Identification Systems, Inc. v. United States, 1936,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • Construing patent claims according to their "interpretive community": a call for an attorney-plus-artisan perspective.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Vol. 21 No. 2, March 2008
    • March 22, 2008
    ...Winans, 62 U.S. (21 How.) at 100-01. (226.) McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U.S. 419, 424 (1891) (emphasis added); see also White v. Dunbar, 119 U.S. 47, 52 (1886) ("[I]t is unjust to the public ... to construe [a claim] in a manner different from the plain import of its terms."); Merrill v. Yeoma......
  • INFRINGEMENT, UNBOUND.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Vol. 32 No. 1, September 2018
    • September 22, 2018
    ...415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Merrill v. Yeo-mans, 94 U.S. 568, 570 (1876)). (65.) Id. at 1312 (quoting White v. Dunbar, 119 U.S. 47, 52 (66.) Id. at 1313. (67.) Id. at 1319. (68.) Winans v. Denmead, 56 U.S. 330, 343 (1853). (69.) Id. at 344. (70.) Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hi......
  • Judicial Wisdom or Patent Envy? the Eleventh, Seventh and Federal Circuits' Patent Jurisdictional Battle
    • United States
    • Georgia State University College of Law Georgia State Law Reviews No. 32-2, December 2015
    • Invalid date
    ...Top Replacement Co., 365 U.S. 336, 339 (1961) ("[T]he claims made in the patent are the sole measure of the grant.").89. White v. Dunbar, 119 U.S. 47, 52 (1886).90. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 ("[T]he claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms.......
  • The "inventive Concept" After Mayo: Where Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371 (fed. Cir. 2015), Went Wrong
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 96, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...subject matter under § 101 is not 'like a nose of wax which may be turned and twisted in any direction . . . .'" (quoting White v. Dunbar, 119 U.S. 47, 51 40. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 (1981). 41. Id. 42. See Casey, supra note 25, for a discussion of the Court's wavering betwe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT