Irwin v. Metropolitan Telephone & Telegraph Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Irwin v. Metropolitan Telephone & Telegraph Co.

9 F. 517, 10 Biss. 530, 1881 U.S. App. LEXIS 2514

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedOctober 21, 1881

StatusPublished

This text of 9 F. 517 (Irwin v. Metropolitan Telephone & Telegraph Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Irwin v. Metropolitan Telephone & Telegraph Co., 9 F. 517, 10 Biss. 530, 1881 U.S. App. LEXIS 2514 (circtsdny 1881).

Pincite

Opinion

Blatchford, C. J.

I think the proper and necessary construction of claims 1 and 2, of No. 209,266, is that the normal pressure of the electrodes must be obtained by means of gravity, counteracted partly by a delicate retractile spring, elastic in the direction opposed to gravity. The spring must suspend tho needle against the force of gravity. The defendants’ instrument does not employ gravity to secure pressure, nor a spring to modify the force of gravity, but it obtains the normal pressure of the electrodes by the direct strain of a flat spring. As to No. 225,388, there is no infringement of claim 3. The vibrating disk of the defendants does not have free edges, and is not capable of vibrating bodily, in the sense of the patent. In consequence of being held by tho spring and the clamp, it bends, and some parts between the center and the edge move more than others.

The bill will be dismissed, with costs, when the case is disposed of as to the Bell Company.

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

Blatchford, C. J.

I think the proper and necessary construction of claims 1 and 2, of No. 209,266, is that the normal pressure of the electrodes must be obtained by means of gravity, counteracted partly by a delicate retractile spring, elastic in the direction opposed to gravity. The spring must suspend tho needle against the force of gravity. The defendants’ instrument does not employ gravity to secure pressure, nor a spring to modify the force of gravity, but it obtains the normal pressure of the electrodes by the direct strain of a flat spring. As to No. 225,388, there is no infringement of claim 3. The vibrating disk of the defendants does not have free edges, and is not capable of vibrating bodily, in the sense of the patent. In consequence of being held by tho spring and the clamp, it bends, and some parts between the center and the edge move more than others.

The bill will be dismissed, with costs, when the case is disposed of as to the Bell Company.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 F. 517, 10 Biss. 530, 1881 U.S. App. LEXIS 2514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/irwin-v-metropolitan-telephone-telegraph-co-circtsdny-1881.