Sheeder v. Shannon

U.S. Circuit Court

Sheeder v. Shannon

25 F. 824, 1885 U.S. App. LEXIS 2346

DecidedOctober 10, 1885

StatusPublished

This text of 25 F. 824 (Sheeder v. Shannon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sheeder v. Shannon, 25 F. 824, 1885 U.S. App. LEXIS 2346 (uscirct 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The second claim of the complainant’s patent Is the only one in controversy here. It is for a combination of heating pipes, D, and metallic plates, E, “applied thereto, forming rests for the boards to be dried, and causing the heat from said pipes to be distributed uniformly over said boards, as set forth.” Bef erring to the body of the specifications, the pipes, D, are “set forth” as constructed with flexible tubes, gum tubing, or suitable rock-joints, so as to permit the elevation and lowering of the pipes, D, without interfering with the circulation of the steam through them. These flexible joints must be regarded as distinguishing and essential features of the construction of the pipes, D; and, in view of the prior state of the art, must be held to be the specific pipes designated in the second claim of the patent. Hinge-joints are not a constituent of the ma[825]*825■chine used by the defendant, and hence are not an infringement of the patented combination.

The bill must therefore be dismissed, with costs.

A similar decree will be entered in the case of Sheeder v. Bicking.

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

Per Curiam.

The second claim of the complainant’s patent Is the only one in controversy here. It is for a combination of heating pipes, D, and metallic plates, E, “applied thereto, forming rests for the boards to be dried, and causing the heat from said pipes to be distributed uniformly over said boards, as set forth.” Bef erring to the body of the specifications, the pipes, D, are “set forth” as constructed with flexible tubes, gum tubing, or suitable rock-joints, so as to permit the elevation and lowering of the pipes, D, without interfering with the circulation of the steam through them. These flexible joints must be regarded as distinguishing and essential features of the construction of the pipes, D; and, in view of the prior state of the art, must be held to be the specific pipes designated in the second claim of the patent. Hinge-joints are not a constituent of the ma[825]*825■chine used by the defendant, and hence are not an infringement of the patented combination.

The bill must therefore be dismissed, with costs.

A similar decree will be entered in the case of Sheeder v. Bicking.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 F. 824, 1885 U.S. App. LEXIS 2346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheeder-v-shannon-uscirct-1885.