Ausable Horse-Nail Co. v. New Haven Horse-Nail Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut

Ausable Horse-Nail Co. v. New Haven Horse-Nail Co.

32 F. 92, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2720

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut

DecidedAugust 22, 1887

StatusPublished

This text of 32 F. 92 (Ausable Horse-Nail Co. v. New Haven Horse-Nail Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ausable Horse-Nail Co. v. New Haven Horse-Nail Co., 32 F. 92, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2720 (circtdct 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Blatchford, Justice.

Only claim 1 of the Ross patent, No. 139,332, is alleged to have been infringed, and only claim 2 of the Goodrich patent, No. 177,237, is alleged to have been infringed. In view of the state of the art, and of the language of the specification of the Ross patent, claim 1 of that patent must be restricted to the particular elements of the combination therein recited. The constantly revolving feed-screw of the Ross patent, with its continuous and non-intermittont motion, cannot be used in combination with the devices of the defendants’ machine, which require an intermittent feed, and perform their operations while the nail [94]*94blanks are at rest. In view of the state of the art, and of the language of the specification of the Goodrich patent, claim 2 of that patent must be restricted to the particular elements of the construction therein recited. The “carrier” of claim 2 is the ring of claim 1, which rotates, and is provided with the downwardly projecting teeth. The defendants’ ring has no such teeth.

Each of the two bills is dismissed, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Blatchford, Justice.

Only claim 1 of the Ross patent, No. 139,332, is alleged to have been infringed, and only claim 2 of the Goodrich patent, No. 177,237, is alleged to have been infringed. In view of the state of the art, and of the language of the specification of the Ross patent, claim 1 of that patent must be restricted to the particular elements of the combination therein recited. The constantly revolving feed-screw of the Ross patent, with its continuous and non-intermittont motion, cannot be used in combination with the devices of the defendants’ machine, which require an intermittent feed, and perform their operations while the nail [94]*94blanks are at rest. In view of the state of the art, and of the language of the specification of the Goodrich patent, claim 2 of that patent must be restricted to the particular elements of the construction therein recited. The “carrier” of claim 2 is the ring of claim 1, which rotates, and is provided with the downwardly projecting teeth. The defendants’ ring has no such teeth.

Each of the two bills is dismissed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 F. 92, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ausable-horse-nail-co-v-new-haven-horse-nail-co-circtdct-1887.