J. L. Mott Iron Works v. F. W. Webb Mfg. Co.

144 F. 103, 75 C.C.A. 128, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 3836
CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit
DecidedFebruary 26, 1906
DocketNo. 602
StatusPublished

This text of 144 F. 103 (J. L. Mott Iron Works v. F. W. Webb Mfg. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
J. L. Mott Iron Works v. F. W. Webb Mfg. Co., 144 F. 103, 75 C.C.A. 128, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 3836 (1st Cir. 1906).

Opinion

COLT, Circuit Judge.

This appeal relates to the Chadbourne patent, No. 4-61,734, bearing date October 20, 1891. The patent is for improvements in water-closets, and the claim in issue reads as follows:

“(1) In water and other like closets or articles, the combination, with the seat thereof having its main opening extended to form a cut-away portion or opening extending through the front part of the seat, of the bowl constructed to also form a front passage and to stop or close the forward part of the front cut-away portion or opening in the seat when the seat is closed, substantially as and for the purposes herein set forth.”

This is the comprehensive claim of the patent, and was intended to cover broadly the Chadbourne invention.

The case, as presented turns on the question of infringement, and this question resolves itself into the single inquiry: What is the invention covered by the patent? If the Chadbourne invention is for a water-closet in which the essential and characteristic features are a cut-away seat in the form of a horseshoe, and a bowl with a lip or projection which fills the opening in the seat, then undoubtedly the. defendants’ water-closet embodies these features. If, on the other hand, the Chadbourne invention is for a water-closet in which the essential and characteristic features are a cut-away seat which extends well forward to prevent the body from coming in contact with this part of the seat, as in ordinary closets, and a bowl with a similar front extension, and having also a raised lip at the front for the purpose of making a tight joint with the seat, and so preventing the escape of odors or gases, then the defendants’ closet does not contain the Chadbourne invention.

The nature and scope of the Chadbourne invention are to be determined by an examination of the specification and drawings of the patent.

The specification says:

“Tlio invention consists in a novel construction of both the bowl and seat in front, substantially ns hereinafter described and more particularly pointed out in the claims; and the object of the invention is not only to prevent contact of the body with the front portion of the seat and howl, especially the iront part of the 'seat, which under ordinary constructions is frequently [104]*104in an uufit condition, especially in closets of public resort, including stores, offices, &e., for use exclusively by women, but to keep the closet or its seat clean without requiring constant care, and to exclude all escaping odors from the closet when the lid is closed. It also prevents any deposit from coining or remaining on the front of the seat and bowl, thereby insuring a clean, dry .exposure of said parts. * * *
“Figure 3 [represents] a view in perspective of the closet in part, showing the seat as partly raised to more fully display the construction of the front portions of the bowl and seat.”
This figure is illustrated in the following cut:

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
144 F. 103, 75 C.C.A. 128, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 3836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-l-mott-iron-works-v-f-w-webb-mfg-co-ca1-1906.