Wollensak v. Sargent

Decision Date08 January 1894
Docket NumberNo. 150,150
Citation14 S.Ct. 291,38 L.Ed. 137,151 U.S. 221
PartiesWOLLENSAK v. SARGENT et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Statement by Mr. Chief Justice FULLER:

This was a consolidated bill in equity founded on two reissued patents granted to appellant for improvement in transom lifters, as follows: No. 9,307, July 20, 1880, (original patent No. 136,801, March 11, 1873,) and No. 10,264, December 26, 1882, (original patent No. 148,538, March 10, 1874.) Appellee was charged with the infringement of the third claim of the reissued patent No. 9,307 and the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and ninth claims of reissue No. 10,264.

The circuit court, on pleadings and proofs, held reissue No. 9,307 invalid for want of patentable novelty, and, on demurrer, reissue No. 10,264 void as to the claims relied on, for laches apparent on the record, and not sufficiently explained by the allegations of the bill.

The opinion of Judge Shipman on motion for preliminary injunction is reported in 33 Fed. 840, and that on final hearing in 41 Fed. 53 E. Banning and T. A. Banning, for appellant.

John K. Beach, for appellees.

Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.

1. The specification and claims of reissue No. 9,307 are as follows:

'Transom lifters have heretofore been constructed with a long upright rod or handle, jointed at its upper end to a lifting arm, which extends to and is connected with the side or edge of the transom sash, the sash being opened or closed by a vertical movement of the long rod. When thus constructed, the upright rod is liable to be bent by the weight of the transom, owing to the want of support at or near the point of junction between the long rod and the lifting arm.

'The object of my invention is to remedy this difficulty; and to such end it consists in providing the proper support, or support and guide, for the upper end of the lifting rod during its vertical movements and while at rest.

'This may be accomplished in a variety of ways, one of which I will now proceed to describe in detail, although I wish it clearly understood that I do not limit my invention to this construction, but regard it as covering broadly any construction, combination, or arrangement of parts which shall support the long or operating rod, and prevent it from being bent or displaced by the weight of the transom.

'In the drawings, D is the door; T, the transom sash, pivoted at top, bottom, or middle, as preferred; A, the lifting arm that connects the sash to the upright rod; U, the upright rod, passing through two guides, G, G', one above, and one below, the point of junction with the lifting arm; R, a friction roller secured to the lifting rod so as to bear against the wall, and support said rod at its point of junction with the lifting arm; n, n, notches cut in the upright rod to receive the end of the set screw; and s, a set screw arranged, in connection with the lower guide and the rod, U, so as to be convenient of operation for the purpose of fixing the transom at any required angle. The upright rod is thus supported at three points, to wit, above, below, and at the joint where it sustains the weight of the transom. It can also be adjusted and securely fastened, so as to open the sash as much or as little as may be desired, and to lock it in that position.

'Having thus described my invention, what claim as new is:

'(1) The combination, with a transom, its lifting arm and operating rod, of a guide for the upper end of the operating rod, to prevent it from being bent or displaced by the weight of the transom.

'(2) The roller, R, arranged at the junction of the lifting arm, A, and upright rod, U, in a transom lifter, substantially as and for the purpose described.

'(3) The guide, G', arranged above the junction of the lifting arm and upright rod, in combination with the prolonged rod, U, the guide, G, and arm, A, substantially as and for the purpose specified.'

In the matter of the action of the patent office upon this reissue, it appeared from the file wrapper and contents that the claims were rejected by the examiner on reference to the patent of Bayley and McCluskey, No. 79,541, July 7, 1868, and that his decision was reversed on appeal by the examiners in chief, who held, among other things, that 'Wollensak's device is, in the first place, a 'lifter' designed for raising against gravity a transom, hinged and swinging horizontally. The improvement covered by the claim consists simply in furnishing the vertical operating rod with a guide above the lever connection, as well as below, to prevent the rod from being bent and displaced, and thus impaired for operating, as occurs with the old form.' In the statement of the case, and the points relied on in support of the appeal, it was said:

'Prior to Wollensak's invention, transom lifters had been composed of a long vertical rod, arranged to move through guides on the door casing, its upper end projecting a considerable distance above the upper guide and jointed to the transom by a pivoted connecting rod. An example of the lifter is shown on the transoms of the examiners in chiefs' rooms.

'The upper projecting end of the lifting rod has no lateral support, and, being made of a small iron rod, is liable to be easily bent.

'The function of the rod is to sustain the weight of the transom in opening and closing, and, as the end of the connecting rod pivoted thereto moves in the arc of a circle while sustaining the weight of the transom, such weight is transmitted to the long upper end of the operating rod in a lateral direction, and has the effect of bending it to such an extent as to prevent it from moving freely through the guide. The bends are either permanent, and destroy the rod for practical use, or the rod vibrates above the guide, and thus binds therein. To overcome these defects, Wollensak provides a guide for the upper end of the rod, by which its movements are steadied, and the lateral bends prevented. Many expedients may be resorted to for guiding the end of the rod, one of which he shows and describes.

'The rejected claims cover this guide in combination with the rod and transom, and the rod, transom, and lifting arm.'

The reissue was before this court in Wollensak v. Reiher, 115 U. S. 87, 94, 5 Sup. Ct. 1132, and the case disposed of on the ground of noninfringement; and the court there said: 'The specification of the complainant's patent undertakes broadly to describe the invention, intended to be embraced in it, as 'any construction, combination, or arrangement of parts which shall support the long or operating rod, and prevent it from being bent or displaced by the weight of the transom;' but, having refer- ence to the state of the art at the date of the alleged invention, and the claims of the patent, the patentee must be limited to the combination, with a transom, its lifting arm and operating rod, of a guide for the upper end of the operating rod, prolonged beyond the junction with the lifting arm so as to prevent the operating rod from being bent or displaced by the weight of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Handel Co. v. Jefferson Glass Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • May 1, 1920
    ... ... 87, 9 Sup.Ct. 437, 32 L.Ed. 863; Shenfield v ... Nashawannuck Mfg. Co., 137 U.S. 56, 11 Sup.Ct. 5, 34 ... L.Ed. 573; Wollensak v. Sargent, 151 U.S. 221, 14 ... Sup.Ct. 291, 38 L.Ed. 137; Kokomo Co. v. Kitselman, ... 189 U.S. 8, 23 Sup.Ct. 521, 47 L.Ed. 689 ... ...
  • Weir Frog Co. v. Porter
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • May 16, 1913
    ... ... reviewing the platform gate case (Aron v. Manhattan Ry. Co., ... 132 U.S. 84, 10 S.Ct. 24, 33 L.Ed. 272), the transom case ... (Wollensak v. Sargent, 151 U.S. 221, 14 Sup.Ct. 291, 38 L.Ed ... 137), the engine valve case (Blake v. San Francisco, 113 U.S ... 679, 5 Sup.Ct. 692, 28 ... ...
  • Crown Cork Seal Co v. Ferdinand Gutmann Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 2, 1938
    ...652, 662, 7 S.Ct. 436, 30 L.Ed. 544; Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U.S. 156, 170, 171, 12 S.Ct. 825, 26 L.Ed. 658; Wollensak v. Sargent, 151 U.S. 221, 228, 14 S.Ct. 291, 38 L.Ed. 137. 2 Woodbridge v. United States, 263 U.S. 50, 56, 44 S.Ct. 45, 47, 68 L.Ed. 3 Woodbury Patent Planing Machine Co. v......
  • Macbeth-Evans Glass Co. v. General Electric Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • November 6, 1917
    ... ... 354, 357, 359, 360, ... 5 Sup.Ct. 174, 6 Sup.Ct. 451, 28 L.Ed. 665; Miller v ... Brass Co., 104 U.S. 350, 352, 26 L.Ed. 783; ... Wollensak v. Reiher, 115 U.S. 87, 101, 5 Sup.Ct ... 1132, 29 L.Ed. 355; Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U.S ... 156, 171, 12 Sup.Ct. 825, 36 L.Ed. 658; ak v ... Sargent, 151 U.S. 221, 228, 14 Sup.Ct. 291, 38 L.Ed ... 137. Again, diligence in reducing an invention to practice is ... of the essence of the right to ... ...
  • 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