California Artificial Stone Paving Co. v. Freeborn, 17 F. 735

California Artificial Stone Paving Co. v. Freeborn

17 F. 735 | U.S. Cir. Ct. | 1883

Sawyer, J.

I have gone over this subject again as to the crosscutting into blocks with a trowel during the process of formation. I adhere to the position that I took in the Cases of Perine and Molitor, 7 Sawy. 190.3 There is in this case a mark on the surface along the line of division between the newly-formed block and the one before formed. The forming of the block against the pavement is according to the specifications in the reissue subsequently disclaimed; but it is claimed that running the marker along the line between the old and new blocks on the surface, after forming the latter, is an infringement. I am not able to take that view. I have gone as far in that direction as I think the patent will justify. I think in that particular it is not an infringement. Counsel for complainant have made a point as to simply marking lines upon the surface of the block with the marker employed. There is one case wherein it was *736held that marking the surface with a fish-line is an infringement. It is insisted by complainant that marking off the blocks on the surface at the.time of laying the pavement with a marker about one-sixteenth of an inch in depth is an infringement. I am unable to perceive that the mere running along the surface of that blunt and rounded marker one-sixteenth of an inch in depth, there being no cutting elsewhere, is making a joint. I fail to see that that is an infringement.

The complainant is entitled to a decree against the defendant for the infringement by dividing the larger block into smaller ones by cross-cutting in the manner adopted and described in the Oases of Ferine and Molitor, supra, and a decree will be entered accordingly. But I am unable to see that running the marker along the line between the old and newly-formed blocks, on the surface only, is an infringement.

Id.