Double-Pointed Tack Co. v. Two Rivers Manuf'g Co. And Others. 1

Supreme Court

Double-Pointed Tack Co. v. Two Rivers Manuf'g Co. And Others. 1

109 U.S. 117, 3 S. Ct. 105, 27 L. Ed. 877, 1883 U.S. LEXIS 941

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedNovember 5, 1883

Docket78

StatusPublished

Cited by30 cases

This text of 109 U.S. 117 (Double-Pointed Tack Co. v. Two Rivers Manuf'g Co. And Others. 1) 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

Double-Pointed Tack Co. v. Two Rivers Manuf'g Co. And Others. 1, 109 U.S. 117, 3 S. Ct. 105, 27 L. Ed. 877, 1883 U.S. LEXIS 941 (1883).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Blatchford

delivered the opinion of the court.

The gist of the invention set forth in the descriptive part of *120 the specification, so far as the first claim is concerned, is to cut the two penetrating ends of the wire diagonally, and in such a way that, while the staple is being driven, the cut faces will both of them be on the lower side, and the two penetrating ends will both of them incline upwardly. It is shown to have been commonly known that the effect of a bevel or a diagonal cut on a penetrating point was to force the point, in being' driven,.in a direction away from the bevel or cut. Double-pointed staples, with á diagonal cut on each point, but the diagonal cut on one point on the upper, and outer side and on the other point on the lower and outer side, as the staple was driven, were old. They were used to- secure wire screens as guards for windows. The effect in driving them ivas to bring the two points together, by throwing them towards each other, through their movements in opposite directions. The mechanical action embodied was the forcing each point, in being driven, in a direction away from its bevel or cut. The result was that the legs of the staple were bent and came together,- and were thus clinched, in the driving, and it was more difficult to pull out the staple than if the legs had gone in without bending. In view of this state of the art, there was no patentable invention, and nothing more than mechanical skill, in putting the diagonal cuts or bevels on the same side of- each leg of the staple, so as to give both points, in driving, an inclination in the same direction, that direction being one away from both bevels, and in using the device to fasten a bail. This was the view, taken by the circuit court. There is no suggestion in the specification or claims as to any invention or novelty in the form of the loop, or of the body,- or in the relative lengths of the two penetrating points, or as to the angles formed by such points with the loop or the body, before driving., The so cutting the penetrating ends that they will both of them incline upwardly in driving is the only feature of invention set forth, and to this the patent.must be limited, so far as the-first claim is concerned.

The second claim is for the washer in combination with the staple of the first claim. This is not a patentable combination. There is only an aggregation of parts when the staple is used *121 with the-washer. The use of the washer is stated in the sped-' fication to he to keep the eye at the end of the bail from contact with the wood or the paint, thereon. The upper point or leg of the staple goes through the eye and through the centre of the washer. But, the presence of the washer does not modify or affect the action of the staple, nor does the staple modify or affect the action of the washer. The washer keeps the eye of the bail from rubbing the wood of the pail. It would have the same effect if it were fastened in some other way than by having the leg of the staple pass through it, and the staple. would in such case have the same operation which it now has.'

The decree of the circuit, court is affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Blatchford

delivered the opinion of the court.

The gist of the invention set forth in the descriptive part of *120 the specification, so far as the first claim is concerned, is to cut the two penetrating ends of the wire diagonally, and in such a way that, while the staple is being driven, the cut faces will both of them be on the lower side, and the two penetrating ends will both of them incline upwardly. It is shown to have been commonly known that the effect of a bevel or a diagonal cut on a penetrating point was to force the point, in being' driven,.in a direction away from the bevel or cut. Double-pointed staples, with á diagonal cut on each point, but the diagonal cut on one point on the upper, and outer side and on the other point on the lower and outer side, as the staple was driven, were old. They were used to- secure wire screens as guards for windows. The effect in driving them ivas to bring the two points together, by throwing them towards each other, through their movements in opposite directions. The mechanical action embodied was the forcing each point, in being driven, in a direction away from its bevel or cut. The result was that the legs of the staple were bent and came together,- and were thus clinched, in the driving, and it was more difficult to pull out the staple than if the legs had gone in without bending. In view of this state of the art, there was no patentable invention, and nothing more than mechanical skill, in putting the diagonal cuts or bevels on the same side of- each leg of the staple, so as to give both points, in driving, an inclination in the same direction, that direction being one away from both bevels, and in using the device to fasten a bail. This was the view, taken by the circuit court. There is no suggestion in the specification or claims as to any invention or novelty in the form of the loop, or of the body,- or in the relative lengths of the two penetrating points, or as to the angles formed by such points with the loop or the body, before driving., The so cutting the penetrating ends that they will both of them incline upwardly in driving is the only feature of invention set forth, and to this the patent.must be limited, so far as the-first claim is concerned.

The second claim is for the washer in combination with the staple of the first claim. This is not a patentable combination. There is only an aggregation of parts when the staple is used *121 with the-washer. The use of the washer is stated in the sped-' fication to he to keep the eye at the end of the bail from contact with the wood or the paint, thereon. The upper point or leg of the staple goes through the eye and through the centre of the washer. But, the presence of the washer does not modify or affect the action of the staple, nor does the staple modify or affect the action of the washer. The washer keeps the eye of the bail from rubbing the wood of the pail. It would have the same effect if it were fastened in some other way than by having the leg of the staple pass through it, and the staple. would in such case have the same operation which it now has.'

The decree of the circuit, court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 U.S. 117, 3 S. Ct. 105, 27 L. Ed. 877, 1883 U.S. LEXIS 941, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/double-pointed-tack-co-v-two-rivers-manufg-co-and-others-1-scotus-1883.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack