Beidler v. United States

253 U.S. 447, 40 S. Ct. 564, 64 L. Ed. 1006, 1920 U.S. LEXIS 1375
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJune 7, 1920
Docket260
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 253 U.S. 447 (Beidler v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Beidler v. United States, 253 U.S. 447, 40 S. Ct. 564, 64 L. Ed. 1006, 1920 U.S. LEXIS 1375 (1920).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Clarke

delivered the opinion of the. court.

This is a suit to recover damages for the infringement of five of the forty-one claims of Letters Patent No. 1,057,-397, applied for March 23,1907, and granted on March 25, 1913.

The specification describes the claimed invention as ah Improvement in Photographing and Developing Apparatus, and as designed primarily for reproducing writings, drawings, pictures or the like, — “novel means being also provided to convey the sensitized film through a series of receptacles containing suitable developing and fixing fluids or through suitable baths according to the requirements.”

*448 The patent is for a machine made up of a combination of elements all of which were old, to produce a result which was old but by a method of co-ordination and operation which it is claimed is new and useful. The invention is declared in the specification to consist in “the details of construction and in the arrangement and combination of the parts,” as “set forth and claimed ” by the inventor.

Figure 1 of the drawings, forming a part of the specification, will aid in explaining the construction and function of the invention as claimed and in determining the character and extent of the disclosures of the patent. [See p. 449.]

The described mode of operation is substantially as follows:

W is a roll of sensitized paper or film placed immediately below the exposure chamber F of a camera, with its sensitized surface uppermost to receive the desired image, reflected from the mirror H. This film is fed into the chamber between the rollers b, and thence along the floor thereof to the rollers D where it emerges from the camera and is seized by “clips ” or clamps N. These clamps are supported and carried by a rack M, and may be moved to and fro (reciprocated) by turning the pinions L on the shaft K, by means of a crank. .

I, J and J' are shallow pans or “tanks ” in which suitable “developing,” “fixing,” and “washing” solutions or fluids are placed and the whole of the construction to the right of the camera, as we face the print, is enclosed in a light-proof case E, referred to in the patent sometimes as a “compartment” and sometimes as a “chamber.” The rack M, and the clamps which hold and support the film, move above the tanks and necessarily above the level of the liquid within them. By turning the pinion L, the rack M is moved outwardly away from the camera, and the clamps draw the film after them until the required length is attained, when it is severed from the roll by a manually operated cutter, O. When the film is thus cut to the *450 desired length, obvigugly only-the'free end will fall to the surface pf the solution in the tank I, and by continuing the outward movement of the rack M, the specification .declares, “the film is carried through the several tanks.” '(The “clips ” or clamps are set and released automatically ¡ánd at the limit of the outward movement the film is released and falls into the tank J/ By reversing the turning of the pinions L the rack and clamps, are returned inwardly to the camera, so that the operation, just detailed, may be repeated.

*449

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

Related

E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. Union Carbide Corp.
250 F. Supp. 816 (N.D. Illinois, 1966)
Hall v. Wright
125 F. Supp. 269 (S.D. California, 1954)
Daniel v. O. & M. Mfg. Co.
105 F. Supp. 336 (S.D. Texas, 1952)
Crampton Mfg. Co. v. Crampton
153 F.2d 543 (Sixth Circuit, 1946)
Special Equipment Co. v. Ooms
153 F.2d 121 (D.C. Circuit, 1946)
Scott Paper Co. v. Marcalus Manufacturing Co.
326 U.S. 249 (Supreme Court, 1945)
United Advertising Corp. of Texas v. Stimson
89 F.2d 450 (Fifth Circuit, 1937)
Kessler v. Buick Motor Co.
64 F.2d 599 (Fifth Circuit, 1933)
Stelos Co. v. Hosiery Motor-Mend Corporation
60 F.2d 1009 (S.D. New York, 1932)
Permutit Co. v. Graver Corp.
284 U.S. 52 (Supreme Court, 1931)
United Drug Co. v. Ireland Candy Co.
51 F.2d 226 (Eighth Circuit, 1931)
Sun Ray Gas Corp. v. Bellows-Claude Neon Co.
49 F.2d 886 (Sixth Circuit, 1931)
Karesh v. Shell-On Sol-Ted Peanut Co.
17 F.2d 496 (D. Maryland, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
253 U.S. 447, 40 S. Ct. 564, 64 L. Ed. 1006, 1920 U.S. LEXIS 1375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beidler-v-united-states-scotus-1920.