Home/U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey/Maier v. Bloom

Maier v. Bloom

95 F. 159, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3146
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey
DecidedMay 25, 1899
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 95 F. 159 (Maier v. Bloom) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Maier v. Bloom, 95 F. 159, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3146 (circtdnj 1899).

Opinion

GRAY, Circuit Judge.

This bill is to restrain an infringement of United States letters patent .Vo. 303,393, issued to Franz J. Maier, one of the complainants, August 12, 1881, for “spring bed bottom.” The bill alleges an exclusive license by the complainant Maier to the other [160]*160complainants, Robert B. Stoll and Tbomas A. Stoll, and contains the allegations usual in such cases.

The specifications and claims, forming part of the letters patent, are as follows:

“This invention relates to that class of bed bottoms composed of upright spiral springs and spiral connecting springs, which unite said upright springs, and form an upper elastic bearing surface; the object of the invention being to provide a more uniform surface in such bed bottoms, and to more perfectly equalize the strain on the upright springs, whereby the said bottom is rendered more'serviceable and durable. In the bottoms of this class heretofore in use, of which I am aware, the upright springs have been connected by connecting springs irregularly arranged, so that the tendency of the said connecting springs has been to draw a large portion of the upright springs to one side, whereby the top spirals of the said upright springs have been drawn or tilted out of a horizontal plane, and the bottom has thus been rendered rough, and therefore unpleasant to rest upon. In my improved device these defects have been overcome. The invention consists in the arrangement and combination of parts, substantially as will be hereinafter set forth, and finally embodied in the claims.
“Referring to the drawings, in which similar letters of reference indicate like parts in each of the several figures, Fig. 1 is a plan view of my device or a portion thereof; Fig. 2, a plan, a modified form thereof; and Fig. 3, a side elevation, showing two upright springs connected by horizontal springs. Fig. 4, represents a top plan of a single helical spring, and illustrating on larger scale the manner of passage therethrough of the elastic connecting springs.
paoIv6fIqrAHQYUn28SKY4wkwJne9wbEQyKOaiM2T7otIrV

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

Related

Alco Kar Kurb, Inc. v. Victor L. Ager, Doing Business as Totowa Concrete Block Company and Two Guys From Harrison, Totowa, Inc
286 F.2d 931 (Third Circuit, 1961)
Frizzell v. Commissioner
11 T.C. 576 (U.S. Tax Court, 1948)
Melber v. School Dist. of Pittsburgh
243 F. 196 (Third Circuit, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
95 F. 159, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maier-v-bloom-circtdnj-1899.