Schuessler v. Davis

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

Schuessler v. Davis

21 F. Cas. 748, 13 O.G. 1011, 1878 U.S. App. LEXIS 1966

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York·Decided May 11, 1878·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

WALLACE, District Judge.

The description. as well as the drawings and model accompanying the original patent, clearly point out the invention claimed in the reissue. The improvement consists in a compact device embodying a loop, bottom plate, and buckle to be attached to a strap by rivets or an equivalent fastening. In my view, the valuable feature of the improvement does not consist in the method by which the case is fastened to the strap, but in the case itself, as forming a loop and buckle combined, and its adaptability to being fastened by various methods to the strap. In the original patent the claim did not cover the combination of the buckle with the ease, or, speaking more accurately, with the bottom plate of the shell of the case, but was limited to a combination of tlie pins or rivets with the ease. It was the object and the proper office of the [749] reissue to correct this omission so as to protect the patentee to the full extent of his invention. It is urged that there is want of novelty in the arrangement by which the buckle is fastened upon the bottom plate of the shell. .The evidence in support of this theory is unsatisfactory, and cannot prevail against the testimony of dealers introduced by the complainant and against the presumption afforded by the complainant’s patent. I am not satisfied that the means described in complainant’s patent for fastening the shell to the strap are an essential feature of his device, although evidently regarded as such by the patentee. If they are, there is reason to believe that the defendant has so far improved upon this feature in his device as to have made a patentable improvement instead of employing an equivalent. In either case the complainant must rely upon the second claim for the purposes of this action. As defendant has appropriated the combination covered by that claim, there will be a decree declaring that claim infringed, and for an injunction and accounting accordingly, with costs.

[For other cases involving this patent, see Loercher v. Crandal, 11 Fed. 872: Metal Stamping Co. v. Crandall, 18 O. G. 1531.]

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

WALLACE, District Judge.

The description. as well as the drawings and model accompanying the original patent, clearly point out the invention claimed in the reissue. The improvement consists in a compact device embodying a loop, bottom plate, and buckle to be attached to a strap by rivets or an equivalent fastening. In my view, the valuable feature of the improvement does not consist in the method by which the case is fastened to the strap, but in the case itself, as forming a loop and buckle combined, and its adaptability to being fastened by various methods to the strap. In the original patent the claim did not cover the combination of the buckle with the ease, or, speaking more accurately, with the bottom plate of the shell of the case, but was limited to a combination of tlie pins or rivets with the ease. It was the object and the proper office of the [749] reissue to correct this omission so as to protect the patentee to the full extent of his invention. It is urged that there is want of novelty in the arrangement by which the buckle is fastened upon the bottom plate of the shell. .The evidence in support of this theory is unsatisfactory, and cannot prevail against the testimony of dealers introduced by the complainant and against the presumption afforded by the complainant’s patent. I am not satisfied that the means described in complainant’s patent for fastening the shell to the strap are an essential feature of his device, although evidently regarded as such by the patentee. If they are, there is reason to believe that the defendant has so far improved upon this feature in his device as to have made a patentable improvement instead of employing an equivalent. In either case the complainant must rely upon the second claim for the purposes of this action. As defendant has appropriated the combination covered by that claim, there will be a decree declaring that claim infringed, and for an injunction and accounting accordingly, with costs.

[For other cases involving this patent, see Loercher v. Crandal, 11 Fed. 872: Metal Stamping Co. v. Crandall, 18 O. G. 1531.]

Schuessler v. Davis, 21 F. Cas. 748, 13 O.G. 1011, 1878 U.S. App. LEXIS 1966 (circtndny 1878).

Pincite

21 F. Cas. 748 (Schuessler v. Davis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related