United States Column Co. v. Benham Column Co.

Second Circuit

United States Column Co. v. Benham Column Co.

238 F. 200, 151 C.C.A. 276, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 1405

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 14, 1916

DocketNo. 17

StatusPublished

This text of 238 F. 200 (United States Column Co. v. Benham Column Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States Column Co. v. Benham Column Co., 238 F. 200, 151 C.C.A. 276, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 1405 (2d Cir. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The District Judge sustained various claims of three United States patents to George F. Thorn for building columns, Nos. 835,717, 844,973, and 844,974. His opinion sets forth fully and clearly the state of the prior art and his conclusion is rested principally on the presumption of invention arising from the granting of the patents, together with public appreciation of the subject patented. The object of the patents was to produce firm and stable columns which could be set one above the other for supporting the floors in buildings of several stories. All the elements of the combinations were old and the combination was useful. The improvement consisted in the filling of a cap telescoped into a hollow steel column with cement, in addition to filling the column itself with cement, which was old, and the insertion of a reinforcing rod extending- from the cement-filled casing of one column through the cement-filled cap into a socket in the base of the superimposed column. The evidence of public use as showing invention is very meager, and we are not able to discover invention in extending the cement filling of hollow columns, which was old, into the hollow caps inserted into the casing of the column or in connecting two columns by a rod projecting from the lower into the upper column.

The decree is reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The District Judge sustained various claims of three United States patents to George F. Thorn for building columns, Nos. 835,717, 844,973, and 844,974. His opinion sets forth fully and clearly the state of the prior art and his conclusion is rested principally on the presumption of invention arising from the granting of the patents, together with public appreciation of the subject patented. The object of the patents was to produce firm and stable columns which could be set one above the other for supporting the floors in buildings of several stories. All the elements of the combinations were old and the combination was useful. The improvement consisted in the filling of a cap telescoped into a hollow steel column with cement, in addition to filling the column itself with cement, which was old, and the insertion of a reinforcing rod extending- from the cement-filled casing of one column through the cement-filled cap into a socket in the base of the superimposed column. The evidence of public use as showing invention is very meager, and we are not able to discover invention in extending the cement filling of hollow columns, which was old, into the hollow caps inserted into the casing of the column or in connecting two columns by a rod projecting from the lower into the upper column.

The decree is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 F. 200, 151 C.C.A. 276, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 1405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-column-co-v-benham-column-co-ca2-1916.