Pattee Plow Co. v. Kingman

129 U.S. 294, 9 S. Ct. 259, 32 L. Ed. 700, 1889 U.S. LEXIS 1689
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedFebruary 4, 1889
Docket88
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 129 U.S. 294 (Pattee Plow Co. v. Kingman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pattee Plow Co. v. Kingman, 129 U.S. 294, 9 S. Ct. 259, 32 L. Ed. 700, 1889 U.S. LEXIS 1689 (1889).

Opinion

Me. Chief Justice • Fullee

delivered the opinion of the court;

This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of the ' United States for the Eastern District of Missouri, dismissing appellant’s bill of complaint.

The bill charges appellees with infringement of the second claim of reissued letters patent No. 6080, dated October 6,1874, which is a reissue of original patent No. 124,218, to. J. _H. Pat-tee, dated March 5; 1872; of the- first and second .claims of •original patent No. 174,684, granted Thomas- W. Kendall, .March 14, 1876-; and of original patent No. 187,899, gr'anted Henry H.. Pattee, February 27, 1877; all for improvements -in cultivators.

Appellee is an Illinois corporation, having a branch house in St. Louis, selling, among other things, cultivators manufactured by B. D. Buford &. Co.¡ at Bock Island, Illinois, which are the alleged infringing machines..

The opinion of the Circuit Court was as follows:

■ “Reissued patent 6080, of■ 1874, second claim of which is-under consideration, has, as to that claim, expanded the original beyond legal‘limits. Therefore, said reissued patent is void, to the éxtent claimed, wherein the defendant is, alleged to have infringed. Second, as to the Kendall patent No.' 174,684, there is no infringement. ' Third, as to -the Pattee patent of 1877, No. 187,899, said patent is void,, there being no novelty of invention therein that is patentablé.” .

The second specification of the original Pattee patent No. 124,218, states that the invention consists “in pivoting the wheels to the axle in such manner that the wheels may either one be advanced forward of the other, throwing the axle diagonal with the line of progression, while the wheels preserve the same relative position to the said line of progression.”

*296 The second specification of the reissue reads as follows: “ It consists in hinging the ends of the axle to plates, to which the draft animals are attached, and which are supported on wheels in such manner that the wheels are retained m the line of progression of the machine by the draft of the animals, aA%d may either one be advanced forward of the other, throwing the' axle diagonal with the line of progression, while the wheels preserve the same relative position to the said line of progression.”

The fourth specification of the original is: “ It consists in the peculiar construction of the hitching device, allowing- the draft animals to advance br recede, the one ahead or. in the rear of the other, without influencing the'plow-beams to the extent of the variation made by the said animals, all as hereinafter fully described.”

The sixth specification of the reissue is: < “ It consists in the arrangement of a hitching device with the draft-plates, which' allow the draft animals to advance or recede, the one ahead or in rear of the other, without influencing the plow-beams to the extent of the variation made by the said animals, all as hereinafter fully described.”

The description of the accompanying drawings is given in the original and in the reissue, thus:

Original

“A is the axle, bowed or elevated at its central part, 13 B are plates secured to the ends of the axle A. ■ The ends of the plates B B are turned outward, forming snugs bibb, b1 b1 are snugs projecting inward from the-plates B B. C 0 are triangular-shaped draftplates, from which project snugs, c c c c, correspond-' ing with the snugs bbbb. Dr D are pins or "bolts, passing *297 through holes in the snugs c o and b b, and thereby pivoting the' plates C C to the axle A. E E are the wheels. F E are the wheel-spindles, their inner ends shouldered, threaded, and secured in slots e e in the lower ends of the plates C C by nuts †f. G G are eveners, pivoted near their centres in the forward ends of the plates C C. H H are bars, their forward ends pivoted to the inner ends of the eveners G G, and their rearward ends pivoted to the snugs bl b1. 11 are hooks on the outer ends of the eveners G G, to which the draft animals are attached.”

*296 Reissue.

. “A represents the axle, formed as shown in the drawings, of an elevated central part A, vertical' side portions A1 A1,* and horizontal projections a a, from each of the vertical side portions A1. B B are draft-plates,'with projecting forward ends b, to which the draft animals may be attached direct1 or by any-' suitable device, and with an-enlarged rear end, from which *297 project lugs b1 b1, corresponding with the projections a a of the axle A, to which they are hinged by vertical bolts C, as plainly shown in the drawings. DI) are the supporting wheels. E E are the wheel-spindles, their inner ends shouldered, threaded, and secured in slots e in .the lower , endsi of the. .plates B by nuts e1. G G are eveners, pivoted near their centres in the forward ends of the plates B. H H are bars, their forward ends pivoted to • the inner ends of the . eveners G G, and their rearward ends 1 pivoted to lugs a1 a1, which project inwardly from the vertical parts A1 of the axle. 11 are hooks on the outer ends of the eveners G G, to which the draft' animals are attached,”

Erom this on, the original and reissue specifications >are substantially alike, the description of figure 1 of the. reissue closing with the words, It will be evident that the draft-plates B support and give direction to the course of the wheels, while. the wheels in turn serve to support them.” f

The first claim of the original is for: “ The axle A, having plates B hinged to the .wheel-spindle plates 0, so that the wheels are retained in the line of progression when one is- in advance of the other, as set forth.”

The second claim of the reissue is for : “ The axle A, hinged to the wheel-spindle or draft-plates B B,so that the wheels are retained in the line of progression bj the draft of the animals, when one is in advantíe of the other, substantially .as described,". and for the purpose specified.”

*298 ' The third claim of the original is: “ The evener-bars G G and bars H H, when combined and arranged to operate with the hinged axle A, plates C, and wheels E E, substantially as and for the purpose specified.”

And the sixth claim of the reissue: “The evener-bars Gaud bars H, combined and arranged to operate with the hinged axle A, plates B, and wheels D, substantially as and for the ■purpose specified.”

'that purpose is stated in the second claim to.

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

Related

Box Patents, Inc. v. Universal Paper Box Mfg. Co.
57 F.2d 66 (Eighth Circuit, 1932)
Hestonville, M. & F. Pass. Ry. Co. v. McDuffee
185 F. 798 (Third Circuit, 1910)
Weston Electrical Instrument Co. v. Stevens
134 F. 574 (Second Circuit, 1904)
Westinghouse v. New York Air-Brake Co.
59 F. 581 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1893)
Featherstone v. George R. Bidwell Cycle Co.
57 F. 631 (Second Circuit, 1893)
Johnson Co. v. Pacific Rolling-Mills Co.
47 F. 586 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California, 1891)
International Terra Cotta Lumber Co. v. Maurer
44 F. 618 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1890)
Hill v. Wooster
132 U.S. 693 (Supreme Court, 1890)
Huber v. N. O. Nelson Manuf'g Co.
38 F. 830 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri, 1889)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
129 U.S. 294, 9 S. Ct. 259, 32 L. Ed. 700, 1889 U.S. LEXIS 1689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pattee-plow-co-v-kingman-scotus-1889.