Spencer v. Pennsylvania R.

U.S. Circuit Court

Spencer v. Pennsylvania R.

34 F. 899, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2955

United States Circuit Court·Decided October 10, 1887·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The first claim (which alone is involved) must be construed as for the particular means devised and shown, to perform the work specified therein; not as a broad claim for a method of accomplish[902] ing the result. In this view the claim is valid. There is no sufficient evidence to justify the charge of non-utility, anticipation, or want of invention. The devise used by the respondent is substantially identical with the complainant’s, to the extent covered by this claim. A decree must therefore go against him for an account.

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

Per Curiam.

The first claim (which alone is involved) must be construed as for the particular means devised and shown, to perform the work specified therein; not as a broad claim for a method of accomplish[902] ing the result. In this view the claim is valid. There is no sufficient evidence to justify the charge of non-utility, anticipation, or want of invention. The devise used by the respondent is substantially identical with the complainant’s, to the extent covered by this claim. A decree must therefore go against him for an account.

Spencer v. Pennsylvania R., 34 F. 899, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2955 (uscirct 1887).

Pincite

34 F. 899 (Spencer v. Pennsylvania R.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.