Home/Second Circuit/Philadelphia Novelty Manuf'g Co. v. Weeks

Philadelphia Novelty Manuf'g Co. v. Weeks

61 F. 405, 9 C.C.A. 555, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2191
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedApril 19, 1894
DocketNo. 95
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 61 F. 405 (Philadelphia Novelty Manuf'g Co. v. Weeks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Philadelphia Novelty Manuf'g Co. v. Weeks, 61 F. 405, 9 C.C.A. 555, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2191 (2d Cir. 1894).

Opinion

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

The apparatus described consists of two separate tools. One of these is a staple driver, consisting, essentially, of a, flat tube containing a flat blade movable therein, the open end of the lube receiving a staple, crown upward, which is ejected from the tube or staple case by a blow on tbe end of the blade or plunger, and llms the staple legs are inserted or driven through the mass of papers upon which the mouth of the staple case is superimposed. The other tool is a clinching base, which clips the paper between a slotted guide arm and a base containing a clinching cavity beneath the slot in the guide. The tools are to [406]*406be used together; but the staple driver may obviously be used with any clinching base which will clinch the ends of the staples driven upon it, even though such base does not contain any distinguishing-feature of complainant’s structure. So, too, the clinching- base of the patent may obviously be used with any form of staple driver which will drive the staples upon the clinching cavity, even though such staple driver differs widely from that described in the patent. The first claim covers the clinching base; the second covers the staple driver; the third covers both tools in combination. The judge of the circuit court found that defendant did not infringe.

It is unnecessary to discuss at length the numerous patents put in evidence, or the minute details of varying construction which malee up the state of the art. The field of invention was a very narrow one before Heysinger entered it, and whether he contributed anything of patentable novelty is extremely doubtful. Be that as it may, it is manifest that his claims can be sustained, if at all, only for the specific structures which he described and claimed. As to the second claim, we concur with the circuit judge in the conclusion that defendant’s staple driver more closely resembles an earlier patent to Brown (No. 218,277, August 5, 1879) than it does Heysinger’s. The third claim of Heysinger’s patent expressly incorporates, as one of the essentials of its combination, “a tubular external case, longitudinally grooved,” and grooved, as the reference to the drawing shows, throughout its entire length. When the patentee was referred by the patent office to Brown’s patent, he sought to distinguish it from his device by showing that “Brown does not use any external groove at all, his tube being a closed one.” And, to escape the reference, Heysinger expressly inserted in this third claim the statement above quoted as to the longitudinal groove. Defendant’s, driver, like Brown’s, has no such groove, and it is difficult to understand upon what theory appellant now contends that such difference is immaterial. In fact, his brief does not contain any argument in support of such contention. The first claim of the 1880 patent is for:

“A paper-filing clip, B D, having the recessed clinching block, J, and guide slot, L, or its equivalent, substantially as and for the purpose herein described.”

The specifications contain the following references to the clip:

“Fig. 4 is a perspective view of the spring of the clip part; Fig. 5, a like view of the base of the clip; Fig. tS, the vibrating clamping and- guide arm of the same; Fig. 7, a plan of the base of the clip from above.” “The device consists of two parts,—one, the clip or base part, which, as shown in Fig.-1, may be attached, singly or in pairs, to a baseboard.” “The base part consists of a metallic base, Fig. 5, so cast or formed as to admit of the reception of the clamping arm, Fig. 6, from beneath, the pins, N, N, upon opposite sides of said clamping bar, thus engaging in sockets, P, P, which act as journal boxes; said clamping bar being held up to its place by the flat spring, E, which is after-wards slipped into its seat; the ends being supported by the shoulders, K, K; the center being free to sink beneath the heel, O, as the thumb lever, D, is depressed.”

The accompanying figures make tbis explanation intelligible:

[407]

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

Related

Bell & Howell Co. v. Bliss
262 F. 131 (Seventh Circuit, 1919)
Matheson v. Campbell
69 F. 597 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1895)
New Departure Bell Co. v. Bevin Bros. Manuf'g Co.
64 F. 859 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut, 1894)
Kilmer Manuf'g Co. v. Griswold
62 F. 119 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York, 1894)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
61 F. 405, 9 C.C.A. 555, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/philadelphia-novelty-manufg-co-v-weeks-ca2-1894.