Home/U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California/Johnston v. Woodbury

Johnston v. Woodbury

96 F. 421, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3255
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California
DecidedAugust 7, 1899
DocketNo. 11,935
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 96 F. 421 (Johnston v. Woodbury) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Johnston v. Woodbury, 96 F. 421, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3255 (circtndca 1899).

Opinion

MORROW, Circuit Judge.

This is a suit for the infringement of letters patent of the United States No. 490,849, granted to the complainant, George Johnston, January 31, 1893, for an ore concentrator. Oomplainant claims to be the sole owner of said letters patent, and of all rights and privileges by them granted covering the United States and its territories, and alleges that great pecuniary benefit and advantage have accrued to him and his licensees from the exclusive possession and enjoyment of the privileges of said letters patent; that the respondent, George E. Woodbury, is making, using, and selling ore concentrators which embody plaintiff’s patented invention, and are infringements thereof; that complainant has suffered great and irreparable injury by reason of said infringements, and therefore asks for an injunction restraining the respondent and his agents and employés from further acts of infringement. The class of ore concentrators to which complainant’s invention, as contained in letters patent No. 490,849, relates, is of the type having an’ inclined endless belt, carried by, and having a longitudinal movement upon, a frame to which a lateral movement is imparted. Finely-crushed sulphur-ets, mixed with water until in the condition of a watery pulp, are fed to the surface of- the belt, and carried up the incline to a point where a sufficient supply of water is met. The combined lateral and longitudinal movement of the belt and the agitation of the pulp and water thus produced cause a separation of the pulp, the sulphurets and heavier precious particles sinking to and contacting with the surface of the belt, while the water and waste material run down the incline, and escape at the lower end of the concentrator. The sulphurets are carried with the belt up the incline, around the guide roller at its upper end, and down through a water tank below, where they are washed off and deposited. Oomplainant specifies his improvement to consist in a novel-manner of connecting the belt frame carrying the moving belt to the stationary main frame, so as to produce an oscillatory motion of the former; also,' in means for changing the degree of oscillation given to such frame, in a flexible connection for the shaft which gives the belt its "uphill” motion, whereby a rigid shaft is' enabled to impart motion to gearing which is carried by and oscillated with the belt frame, and in the construction of the water box, or distributor. The accompanying drawings illustrate the mechanism) and are described by complainant as follows:

[423]*423

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

Related

Baker v. United States
115 F.2d 533 (Eighth Circuit, 1940)
Johnston v. Woodbury
109 F. 567 (Ninth Circuit, 1901)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
96 F. 421, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnston-v-woodbury-circtndca-1899.