On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
United States Circuit Court.-District of Connecticut. MEYER et al. vs. GOODYEAR's india-rubber glove MANUFACTURING COMPANY.--PATENT RUBBER SHOE. Shipman, J.: This is a bill in equity to restrain the alleged infringement of reissued letters patent granted to the plaintiffs on November 17, 1874, for an improvement in India-rubber shoes. The original patent was granted to Christopher Meyer and John Evans, as inventors, on February 21, 1871, and was reissued to the same persons on July 16, 1872. Infringement is not denied. The claim in the patent was for-- " One or more transverse ribs in rubber shoes or sandals, formed by thickening the substance itself in the lines or directions thereof while in the sheets, by means of rolling dies, as and for the purpose described." Before the invention the edges of the mouth of the shoe were strengthened and made to present a finished appearance by being turned over by hand and cemented. Sometimes cords or strips of rubber were placed by hand upon the edge and were cemented. As a part of the invention, but not included in the original specification, claim, or drawings, the inventors ribbed the edge of the mouth of the shoe with a rib formed in the manner which has been described. The first reissue was obtained for the purpose of including this rib within the patent. The claim was as follows: "As a new article of manufacture India-rubber shoes with strengthening or other ribs homogeneous with the substance of the body, formed by thickening up the said substance in the forming of the sheet, substantially as specified." The validity of the first reissue was then tested in this circuit in the case of Meyer v. Pritchard, which was tried before Judge Blatchford (12 Blatchf., C. C, R , 101). The court held that there was no patentable novelty in the invention in view of the patent granted to Silas C. Hyatt and Christopher Meyer, January 17, 1854. The first and third claims of this patent were as follows: " 1. Producing a shoe sole or other analogous manufacture in India-rubber or gutta percha in one piece, having variety of thickness in its different parts, by the use of rollers whose surfaces present the reverse of the forms to be produced at a single operation, substantially as herein described. " 3. We also claim such soling or analogous manufacture in continuous sheets, at one operation, by rolling, as described." The present reissue was thereupon granted, in which the claim is limited to the rib around the mouth of the shoe, and is in these words: " As a new article of manufacture. India-rubber shoes having a strengthening rib around the top or mouth of the shoe (whether with or without similar ribs on other parts of the shoe), formed not by turning over the edge or lapping one piece upon another, but thickened up from and homogeneous with and forming a part or portion of the body of the upper, substantially as specified." Divers defenses are set up in the answer. The two which are rehed upon are the invalidity of the reissue, because it is for a different invention from that described in the original patent, and lack of patentable novelty in view of the Hyatt and Meyer patent of 1854. 197 The court now holds that this second reissue is invalid, and for the same reason given on the trial of the first reissue, namely, double use, as shown by the Hyatt and Meyer patent of 1854. The decision in Meyer v. Pritchard upon the reissue then before the court to the effect that the alleged invention covered thereby of forming thickened ribs in rubber shoes or sandals by rolling was but a double use of the invention disclosed in the prior patent to Hyatt and Meyer--viz., forming the soles of rubber shoes of different thicknesses by rolling--fleW to govern this case, the present reissue only differing from the former in being specifically limited to ribs around the mouth of the shoe. A reissue may include matter shown in the model which was not described or indicated in the original specification or drawing; and it seems that the character of a lost or destroyed model may be established by oral testimony. Argument against the propriety of holding that the claim of the present reissue was not patentable by reason of the earlier patent is argument against the propriety of the decision which was made in the Pritchard case. The bill is dismissed. United States Circuit rourt.-Southern District of New York. gardner et al. V. hbrz et al.--patent chair seat. Wallace, J.: This action is brought to restrain the infringement of Reissue Letters Patent No. 9,094. dated Pebruary 24, 1880, granted to the assignee of George Gardner for an improvement in chair-seats. Reissue Letters Patent No. 9,094, for a chair-seat made of lamiuse of wood glued together, with the grains in one layer crossing those of the next, concave on the upper surface, convex on the lower surface, and perforated, examined and found to present no patentable novelty over the patent to Mayo, granted December 26, 1865. Merely giving the well known concave or dishing shape by an old process to a chair-seat formed of the materials covered by the Mayo patent is not invention. It is merely , applying a process that is old to a material that is old to obtain an old form. United States Circuit Court.--Southern District ot New Yorfe. coburn et al. vs. schrobdbr et al. Wheeler, J.: This cause has now been further heard upon motion of the defendants to have the decree opened and leave granted to put in as further defenses to the patent an English provisional specification, left by James Ritchie Butchard, January 23, 1866, at the office of the Commissioner of Patents in England, with a petition for a patent, and other evidence of prior knowledge and use. The invention is understood to have been made iu Pebruary, 1866. Motion to have a decree opened and leave granted to put further defenses to the patent denied where it appeared that the new evidence would not affect the result. An invention is not patented in England, within the meaning of the third division of section 4,920 Revised Statutes, until the completed specification has been filed. An EngHsh provisional specification is not a bar to the grant of a patent in this country, and when relied on as a printed publication under section 4,920 Revised Statues it seems that the defendant must show that it was actually published before the date of the patentee's invention. Motion for opening a decree on account of an alleged change of issue made by. the fiUng of a disclaimer by the patentee, denied where it appeared that the effect of the disclaimer was merely to iimit the claim of the patent and the issue, and where the parties had full opportunity to try, and diligently availed themselves of the opportunity to trj', the question which would be open if the case should be again opened. United States Circuit Court.--Southern District of New York. holliday et al vs. pickhardt et al--patent 250,247.-- rosaline color, Blatchford, J : On a motion for a preliminary injunction, question being raised whether the patentee's description would make the product claimed by him, and it appearing that this point was decided in favor of the patentee by the Patent OlHce on a direct issue between him and another patentee whom the defendants represented. Held, for tlie purposes of the motion, that the product claimed could be obtained by following the description of the patent. The successful party to an interference is entitled to preliminary injunction against the representatives of the defeated party in case the infringement is clear, and the decision of the Patent Office in an interference between the parties as to the identity of the products sufficient proof of infringement. Nathan Rlxford. Mr. Nathan Rixford died in Hartford, Conn., August 29, at the age of sixty-seven. He was, at his death, probably the oldest living representative of the silk culture and manufacture in this country. He started the first silk manufactory in Mansfield Hollow, Conn., where be was a manufacturer for more thau thirty years
