Stimpson v. Woodman

77 U.S. 117, 19 L. Ed. 866, 10 Wall. 117, 1869 U.S. LEXIS 1048

• Court: Supreme Court of the United States
• Decided: April 25, 1870
• Status: Published

Opinions

Mr. Justice NELSON

delivered the opinion'of the court.

Taking the evidence as stated in the bill of exceptions, it will be seen that the only difference between the. prior machine and the plaintiff’s, • in its combination and arrangement, and in its workiug and effect upon the leather, is that the metallic roller in the former had a smooth, and in the latter a figured surface. In- all other respects the two machines were the same; But, as also appears in the bill of exceptions,'this figured revolving'roller was old, and the use of it in pebbling leather was also old and well known. Neither the plaintiff'nor the defendant could claim any right to it as inventors. The same pebbled grain or finish, as described in plaintiff’s patent, had already been produced on leather by subjecting it to pressure while rolling over the table on which the leather was placed. But this pressure was produced by means of hand devices. The field of invention was open to any person to construct new devices or machinery by moans of which to operate this old instrument in “pebbling leather,” — in the language of the patentee in this case, “so as to accomplish the object desired with greater rapidity and cheapness.” And this the plaintiff would have accomplished by his machine if he had not been anticipated. But the case admits that evidence was given tending to show that the device or machine he has patented for the purpose, so far as used by the defendant, was the same as the Green machine, which was prior in date.

The prayer for the second instruction to'the jury prayed for by the defendant is somewhat involved and obscured by too much verbiage; but when analyzed and understood, it was clearly warranted and supported by the evidence, and should have been given. In substance it is, if the jury should find that the figured roller in the plaintiff’s machine was not material to the mechanical action of the roller in the combination and arrangement of ’the machinery by which it was moved, the leather supported, and the pressure made; and if they find that before the plaintiff’s a machine was known and in use similar to his, except that the surface of the roller was smooth; and if they find that before the plaintiff’s invention figured rollers were known and used in other machines for the same purpose, then the plaintiff’s first claim was void. In other words, and,- in short, if the plaintiff’s machine had .been anticipated in every part of its construction except the figures or designs on the roller, which roller was old, he was not entitled to-recover. This instruction was refused, which, for the reasons already stated, we think was error.

There is, also, another ground upon which we think this instruction should have been given. Assuming the plaintiff to have been anticipated in the construction of his machine in every part of it, except- that the prior machine used a smooth revolving roller, and the plaintiff a figured one, but which figured roller had been used for pebbling leather by pressure, and was well known, all of which the jury would have been warranted in finding, the engraving or stamping of the figure upon the surface of the smooth roller, or the substitution of the old figured'roller for the purpose, required no invention; the change with the existing knowledge in the art involved simply mechanical skill, which is not patentable.

Judgment reversed. Venire de novo.