Schalscha v. Sutro

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Schalscha v. Sutro

19 F. 319, 1884 U.S. App. LEXIS 2038

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedFebruary 6, 1884

StatusPublished

This text of 19 F. 319 (Schalscha v. Sutro) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schalscha v. Sutro, 19 F. 319, 1884 U.S. App. LEXIS 2038 (circtsdny 1884).

Pincite

Opinion

Wallace, J.

The claim of the patent to Schalscha (No. 186,628, granted January 3, 1877) is “a cigar constructed as described, with a longitudinal opening, H, in its drawing end, and the end of the wrapper, A, secured permanently witliin the aperture, as and for the pur[320]*320pose set forth.” Read with the description, however, the claim must ■be limited to one for the cigar when made by the machine described in detail by the patentee as employed by him for the purpose, or a substantially similar machine. No mode of making such a cigar is disclosed in the specification except by means of the machine described. The machine is described with particularity, and the mode ■of operating it; and among the advantages enumerated as the result of the invention are those which could only result from the employment of the particular machine. There is no evidence that the defendants’ cigars were made by a machine; on the contrary, the proof is that the hole in the tip was punched by a pencil.

The bill is dismissed.

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

Wallace, J.

The claim of the patent to Schalscha (No. 186,628, granted January 3, 1877) is “a cigar constructed as described, with a longitudinal opening, H, in its drawing end, and the end of the wrapper, A, secured permanently witliin the aperture, as and for the pur[320]*320pose set forth.” Read with the description, however, the claim must ■be limited to one for the cigar when made by the machine described in detail by the patentee as employed by him for the purpose, or a substantially similar machine. No mode of making such a cigar is disclosed in the specification except by means of the machine described. The machine is described with particularity, and the mode ■of operating it; and among the advantages enumerated as the result of the invention are those which could only result from the employment of the particular machine. There is no evidence that the defendants’ cigars were made by a machine; on the contrary, the proof is that the hole in the tip was punched by a pencil.

The bill is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 F. 319, 1884 U.S. App. LEXIS 2038, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schalscha-v-sutro-circtsdny-1884.