Mellon v. Smith-Davis Manuf'g Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri

Mellon v. Smith-Davis Manuf'g Co.

23 F. 153, 1885 U.S. App. LEXIS 1884

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri

DecidedMarch 2, 1885

StatusPublished

This text of 23 F. 153 (Mellon v. Smith-Davis Manuf'g Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mellon v. Smith-Davis Manuf'g Co., 23 F. 153, 1885 U.S. App. LEXIS 1884 (circtedmo 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Treat, J.

The several claims in plaintiff’s patent are for the combinations therein respectively named. As to some of such combinations, obviously there is no infringement. From the state of the art at the.date of said patent, no novelty as to the alleged invention is discernible. The court can detect no exercise of inventive faculty where-from the mechanical arrangements named are patentable, within the purview of the patent law. There is no suggestion in the patent as to adjustability, and indeed the specifications show that the opposite was in the mind of the patentee. Soldering, welding, or the use of reversely screw-threaded couplings would make the connection of the two parts fixedly rigid. Such, also, would be the effect of a collar as in the patent described. The court, therefore, is of the opinion that the patent is void for want of novelty. Morris v. McMillin, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 218.

Bill dismissed, with costs.

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

Treat, J.

The several claims in plaintiff’s patent are for the combinations therein respectively named. As to some of such combinations, obviously there is no infringement. From the state of the art at the.date of said patent, no novelty as to the alleged invention is discernible. The court can detect no exercise of inventive faculty where-from the mechanical arrangements named are patentable, within the purview of the patent law. There is no suggestion in the patent as to adjustability, and indeed the specifications show that the opposite was in the mind of the patentee. Soldering, welding, or the use of reversely screw-threaded couplings would make the connection of the two parts fixedly rigid. Such, also, would be the effect of a collar as in the patent described. The court, therefore, is of the opinion that the patent is void for want of novelty. Morris v. McMillin, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 218.

Bill dismissed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 F. 153, 1885 U.S. App. LEXIS 1884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mellon-v-smith-davis-manufg-co-circtedmo-1885.