*1 Winans v. Denmead. Ross Adam, Error, Edward, in and Winans, Plaintiff Talbot iron; body sheet making for of Aburden railroad car of patent taken out A frustum a a of cylindrical, part of upper part being lower in form cone, flange flange a edge of which has -a it. to which the under secured nn is -tached. movable bottom my by invention and desire to secure letters- this. AATmtI claim as The claim was coal,-&c., is, making body of in the form patont, a car for the of described, cone, whereby the force' ex- as herein of a frustum of tend weight presses and does not by equally the load in all directions erted of thereof, every equal proportion, part resists change so that its. by a¿y3. pass as to within the truck frame the lower reduced down which also between axles; gravity without the centre of of the load to lower diminishing c,-r extending body also capacity the car as described. I claim the below the the car of draught, by passing of connecting pieces of the frame the line truck bar, through draught frame and the connecting bars of the truck of substantially described.” machine, merely -big but the form a means patent was not for char This employ mechanical or natural powers, other such or a to introduce useful and thus attain new and result. operation, mode of now Hence, where, patentee against persons had brought by who constructed in suit cars, Judge good ruled that the octagonal pyramidal District .bodies, bodies, ruling not for rectilinear was erroneous. conical but for attained, both, structure, the same in operation, and the result were the mode of cars, covered the rectilinear AATiththis and the claimed question patent, to the to decide the explanation of the it should have been left as a of fact. of error from the writ Circuit brought This case was up Coates for the District of the United Maryland. Court for the action Ross "Winans infringe- It was an' brought by under the instruction of the of a ment patent-right. jury, alone, Glenn, late then found sitting Judge District Judge, defendants; for the case a verdict plaintiff brought court of error. to this writ the, state- case is set forth the explanatory The nature for the to the of the counsel argument plaintiff ment prefixed in error. Latrobe,.for error, Mr. It was plaintiff argued by t’ne in error. defendant Campbell, Mr. in error. plaintiff points
Statement error, Winans, Ross 26th'June, Í847, theOn use- new and States, for of the United obtained letters-patent coal, &c. cars for transportation ful improvement thus prin- the invention patented, The occasion thus, set forth it, are well specification, —.... ciple articles in coal, and all other heavy The transportation the cars, requir- attended with great injury lumps, v. Denmead. to be the bodies resist great strength, ing constructed on the as the sides, outward well vertical pressure press- bottom, due, mass, ure other, ‘to each lumps tending mobility amongst pack,’ *2 termed. that cars shown, as it is technically Experience made a load old mode-of construction cannot be to the cany I but, their own am than improvement, weight; by my greater -make'cars of than those heretofore enabled to greater durability coal. made, will double their transport weight “ invention, which I am enabled to The principle my by a consists in end, this important making body, obtain conical, the area of the bottom re- thereof, by portion and the load exerts an strain on all and which duced, equal parts, form, but to exert strain tend to an equal change does not at the time circle; direction pre- in the the reduced the lower size of advantage, sents important by and between the thereof, to extend down within the truck part centré of of the the' load.” axles, thereby lowering gravity a of mode detailed then gives description- The specification —. in : . cars thus question,, proceeds' of constructing “ invention, and desire to secure let- claim as What I by my a car for cone, making ters-patent a form a frustum of &c., in the coal, of. the force exerted described, weight whereby by herein load tend to directions, in all does not equally presses thereof, so that resists every equal pro- the form part as to pass also lower reduced and which by portion, axles, to frame, truck and between the lower within the down the ca- of the without load, the-centre diminishing gravity as described.” car pacity a claim a concludes with portion And the specification this connection. construction, important cars, that constructed testimony appears From while in accordance with they weigh- specification, pfaintiif, n —coal each, ed 5.750 lbs. carried 18.550 making but of weight lbs. car, as load, in to the of the proportion weight 3.3 of the sheet iron in the con- 1—that thickness used bodies was but 3.32ds of an and that the inch, struction 'j 2 an inch around -were of dimensions- band top shown, it is further in illustration of the inches; and importance car, had constructed a model invention, plaintiff' 2| tons, 9| tons of which, carried, nevertheless, but weighing “ coal from Cumberland safety satisfactorily perfect in this car, thé weight Baltimore.” proportion 4 it, carried of coal was as instance, weight further, from appears testimony, generally, nearly. cars referred to used were of coal trañsportation near the mines Cumberland to Baltimore. It then that the defendants, in view for a appears the call cars from roads near Cumberland,” in mining 1849, ’50, draftsman, their Cochrane, required car that get would up suit their that he went to the read, purposes; and find- Reading there, returned to Baltimore, went to ing nothing plain- tiff’s where he saw car finished, shops, which he ex- nearly make, amined and measured.” That it first occurred to him to wheels, car, as this square would interfere with the made an one. octagonal Another witness that the iron used in the proves, car, tJms defendants, built of the same thickness as that us--cl 3.32ds of wit, inch, an while the plaintiff, band — ~ around the and was of the same thickness, top wit, of an inch, inches in width. l\ It thus appears parent granted, to Ross coal, Winans for car for whose merits carrying sum- — thus; med it carried more coal up to its proportion own than in use, car the load previously instead *3 it, it in as a distorting preserved shape, acting framing. These eminent which increased the advantages, available to locomotive revenue on power engine, looking coal as a cent, from 50 to 100 were to be per attributed freight, peculiar shape to the of the car of a frustum of a body, consisting cone, iron, use the thin as has which permitted described, in the of the car, or the lessening, weight proportion, weight, the the locomotive which no by gave return in that, and it in view of revenue; the best appears re- obtaining in invention, sults from his ’50, at the plaintiff, in- Pratt,' stance of the a model car- witness for perfected certain — that Cumberland; roads near this model car was mining and the defendant’s draftsman, examined measured to by aid in coal cars for other him in-1849 getting up mining companies cars of the 1850; and, and of ma- subsequently, in differed from the bodies, terial which in plaintiff’s were and that while latter conical, the only, cylindrical the. — and built others were were the de- pyramidal, octagonal fendants, of 24. to the number built the defendants that the cars thus were Believing , built in violation óf his plaintiff brought palpable patent, suit. present record, that seen, It Will be the main ques- by examining built was; cars, tion before the whether de- jury same in fendants, were substantially the car described and claimed plain- operation by. TEEM, DECEMBEE v. JJenmead. were on tiff in his examined both sides specification, experts this point. on contended, defendants it was that the cars On part were of the defendants while the octagonal shape, plaintiff’s were cylindrical. insisted, it im- that this was On plaintiff was material, car obtained the same useful provided octagonal of the same in its con- results, through that, it ; struction and was of the sided if the construction suggested original an lines saved hundred- right infringement, also would be without patent; polygon the. even the car was than fact, conical oftener point polygon from the curve, character of the material true owing accident, it if, that came from built; it was shops it;of cone, or use made a true two’s polygon a'day theoretical coal, the immediate of the load of when put tendency it into car, its size and convert into an was out bulge octagon of show- a conical one. All which was urged purpose toas whether question was question necessarily ing the — a of form colorable or substantial determine. fact, belonged this, and in statement, view It is not necessary, into evidence in on this regard arising appeal, go questions in detail. colorable difference construction All to merely sides, on witnesses, both advantages proved obtain obtained were proposed Winans defendant’s to the fact witnesses cars —the swearing cross- and the defendant’s witnesses admitting directly, that of the now ; only testimony quoted examination own witness. leading defendant’s thus bottom of car a reduced That the advantage conical or obtained, whether the car. octagonal; was. the conical bottom, due the adoption strengthening form was the same when the' form, the pressure, adopted octagonal to resist the the best that the circular form was circular; boiler, an steam as, instance, octagonal car was *4 that the formq one better than the square octagonal (cid:127) one car; than the conical that practical purposes, better was. sides be would as that a the other; many polygon as good as car, was to a that the circle; practically, equivalent octagon saw no witness as one; the conical substantially, good two.” differencebetween the all where plain- be one way, The must indeed testimony showing. defendant’s own tiff is rest case on the willing b.elow, questions: were two of the there view plaintiff construction of court, patent; the first for v. substantial, or colorable for the jury, being second difference mode of between the cars operation. principle Honor, late the Circuit Court (his plaintiff prayed Glenn, accordingly. sitting alone) Judge of the construction for the court’s spe- In framing prayer cification, adopted, the specification language court were invention; object describing “ had to look at what asked to they say jury circumstances, whether, in form may not simply done the de- which had been immaterial; or less more varied from the plaintiff’s patent, fendant but to see defendants, whether, effect, in substance set in the the same view as that forth plain- having object thereof, date constructed had, since the cars tiff’s specification, and on the same which, on the same principle substantially, And to the same result.” of operation, mode accomplished give added the instruction more certainty plaintiff prayer, to a him, verdict, that to entitle the prayed of the defendants’ cars should was be necessary conical, term, in the exact definition provided jury believe the form the defendants accom- should adopted by result, the same that in view the plished substantially, the same and in plaintiff, operation.” same of the first here quoted, was language prayer, verbatim, from the of Sir N. C. taken the charge Tindal to nearly, Horsfall, in the case of Walton Potter and Web- Cases, Pat. ster’s a case This was where the was for the sub- plaintiff’s patent of sheets stitution rubber for for the India leather insertion teeth, manufacture of wool; cards for carding in the use of cloth saturated with solu- lay of India rubber court, tion for the purpose; after the construction of the substan- determining specification, gave the same instruction that the for here. It tially is in this case that C. J. Tindal plaintiff prayed' a man has, That if says, of his dint own after a genius discovery, been obtained, able to reference to without public, give one, one, former rior mode from the former a new and borrowing supe- the same end, at there can be no objection of’arriving to his out a for But he has no taking purpose. if I take, whatever a leaf out of his
right bor’s say, neigh- book, &c.” hard indeed to find a would case where court’s de- cause, the facts in this cision, more applied completely nega- set build the defendants, tived the Cars right, .up by *5 1853. n v, Winans build; here, for did the leaf out of they taking inference, left to and date are book for day given the act. case is the Huddart v. To Grimshaw, also point Cases, court below. Webster’s Patent cited in the 95. for a had been a Here obtained patent making rope, while strands, being- passage process being it that tube; had twisted, through appeared they formerly K the tube a hole in and the plate. were through plate passed the difference sanie, colorable then substantially, only, void, and the was otherwise good; question it was patent to who found for the left was jury, plaintiff. is the case of v. Dixon, the same Russell To & point Cowley Cases, Patent Webster’s for iron tubes, case This was welding heat, conical hole. them, at welding through drawing them between rollers; was passing difference, was referred or substantial to colorable question the jury. Cases, v. Webster’s Seaward, Patent So in case Morgan wheels of was 170, paddle Gallaway’s patent steam-vessels, and where infringement having “ Alderson, B., told the Court, ques- arisen, the defendant’s machine be, whether simply, tion would it whether differed different; merely colorably only for the mechanical contrivances equivalents substitution after And were patentee.” referring resorted “ construction, continues, Therefore, the court two points machines one man was the first inventor were alike principle; adopted it; and the other has though of the principle, one mechanical carried it into effect have by substituting are look to the another, still you jury) equivalent (the form, and if it is in substance an and not mere substance, find so.” you ought infringement, out of v. too, in the case of So, Beverly, growing Crossley a, Alderson, B., and referred meter; for gas Clegg’s Cases, Patent others, Webster’s v. Pratt and case Jupe case than was a more instructive : never as follows There the Lord well put that. I remember argument very There never case, and succeeded. led on Baron, who Chief in- different than the more plaintiff’s two eye were things in contravention of had-done the defendant vention, and what form; was different invention patent-right. in one thing, construction; different and agreed A made water. certain was, point by moving - another, to shut after, up either before or open Denmcad. it, was made to passing through opening; through gas pass them, men, it; said, revolvé the scientific all it was made to man has the moment a scientific practical, got *6 the in which head, end, his can without forms in he multiply, can be made to operate.” principle the moment discussion; As the case in under practical, to the car a man is furnished with the idea scientific giving will, framing ordinarily which shape dispensing load, to its used, enable him to make in lighter proportion end without before, than it the been made he can ever multiply He in can be made to forms this operate. principle sides, of can of an hundred make the car twenty polygon cone, of the sides, or of He can sides. vary angle eight is ad the coal discharged, pyramid, through infinitum. or He the bottom smaller to can make the at larger opening avail himself or not of He can please advantage fancy. the centre of car,' the' in so as to lower lowering position, be, whether, whatever Still must question gravity. always is the first of after struction he not himself adopts, availing shape principle which, in a court question suggested by patentee; law, court, at but the is all times a not for the question jury; that con- the former shall have specification given the latter in whether which's determining govern falls, substantially, principle infringement complained mode of within the cited, patent. operation, relied on authorities here and which were The below, held sustain court are plaintiff; prayer construction the specification, having pronounced upon should be left the.question jury. of infringement however, and, The court below differently, rejecting thought defendants, instructed both jury, plaintiff prayers therein; That described while the for what good a conical whole part, supported body a conical on for a of' modes indicated sustaining same, and for those truck, or. princi- carriage ples linear drawing to recti- and not which are due alone to conical vehicles the defendant’s car bodies; and it admitted there was no- rectilinear, was entirely Record, 16,17. See plaintiff’s patent.” pages but to for the left this instruction Upon nothing set- court had not
render defendant. The a verdict for the also. tled the construction, but the infringement district the late decision of is from this appeal present judge. n are, in error points plaintiff construction erred in 1. the court below That 337 1853. v. should it held that this construction to the specification, gave conical form. strictly limited relied on is the itself. And point authority upon erred, even that its con- 2. the court below supposing That correct, in in- excluding struction of the defendants were cars whether quiry with those of and mode of the same in in their sec- that these last were rectilinear admitting plaintiff; tions and not curvilinear. Walton on, are, v. the authorities And relied point Cases, Grimshaw, 587; Webster’s Patent Huddart v. Potter, 144; v. Mor Pratt, v. ; Seaward, Crossley Id. 95 Id. citing Beverly, Jupe 463; Id. 170; Id. Russel v. Crowley, Phillips v. gan Patents, 125, 6, on 265, 264, 5, Patents, 263, 268; Curtis (Infringement.) Stone, v. 273; Winkley, v. Odiorne Story, Wyeth Citing, Peters, Moore, James, 394; C. C. R. v. 51; Gall. Gray Bovill Pat. Ca. 361. Dav. erred in fact 3. That court below taking *7 the jury. on. authorities cited are relied the which already Upon point Points. Defendant's the court below was submits that right defendant in error The the the other side and instruction the giving in refusing prayer it did. which the 1. As to rejected prayer plaintiff. to consist essence of the invention the This prayer asserted asserted, so the and conical form adopted patentee, rightly the but the conclusion by sequitur. a It was thence drawn' was non claimed form was a violation. Had other any form of aof principle operating through the application forms, claimed the more or less other .cone, through whatever or mode of through shape permitted principle ' deduction. been some for the But have -it, would ground there form, is confined to through claim single only the that embodies; if, out of to the form more or less the same mode forms embodying perfectly -many táest, in error has made his choice of he operation, plaintiff which' it involves to that choice and the confined rejection admitted, It all forms less felicitous. of other without hesitation, substitution of chemical equi mechanical will of a called, as are affect the valents, they patentee», rights are cases holds principle where modus: operandi end. than desired more reach the embraces single way a- Where consists of embodied in the invention principle xv. von. 29 v. Denmead principle is the principle a single.form, without there can be violation form, no Palmer, Davis v. form. Brockenbrough, use of the . 2. As instruction. court’s was exclusively construction the(judge. form. construed curvilinear embracing only He it correctly relied on con- that, as the It infringements followed necessarily there no forms; rectilinear sisted in the construction violation patent, evidence -to jury go Birth, 9 Greenleaf instruct him them. proper Peters, 292. the court. Mr. Justice delivered opinion CURTIS Court, of the the Circuit This is of error to writ United a. in error Statés, District Maryland. ex- for an action that court brought in cars for to-make, clusive sell “an use, and right improvement to him coal,” &c., letters-patent, granted 1847; and, June, 26th date on the judgment bearing day defendants, court for the hé has record brought here of error. writ of exceptions, letters-patent bill appears, by the. their and that was not issued, declared on were validity duly denied that had but the defendants questioned; they infringed the exclusive right plaintiff. first what is the trial, such a two arise. The On questions constructed, second, has that thing thing patented; defendants; used, or sold court, —The first determined law, by arid of the inven- construing -letters-patent, description, to them. The tion and claim annexed second is a to a fact, to be submitted question of jury. this case it is the court the specification alleged construed of claim withdrew from erroneously, thereby decide. it was This renders questions it their province *8 to examine schedule the necessary letters-patent, annexed to to see construction them, whether their by the Circuit Court was correct. on cases, founded this, as in most alleged improve- is the machines, ments in to determine what in order thing it is patented, inquire. necessary What; 1. is device, structure or described patentee, by as his invention. . embodying What is introduced 2. mode of arid employed by operation this structure or device. by opera- mode means this of 3. What result is of attained tion. 853. of claim cover the Does the described mode the result is attained. of operation by details, into Without to draw- going unnecessary referring structure, be stated that described this ings, by patent, car, of a burden railroad made of is the sheet iron, the and the lower in the form of part a upper part .being cylindrical, has cone, of a the under of frustum edge secured flange is to which movable bottom attached. it, flange This upon bottom is made movable, in order the load discharge through it. left removing aperture by the mode of introduced and em- To operation .understand of this of the is means car by body, ployed necessary state, on the face what specification, appears correct, as that, at the trial testified to and was by experts by of the car the circular form body, reason of load pressure direction, and thus the load outwards was equal every that, by itself in lower degree; making great supported this of .action conical, throughout operated part of the small to which the movable car, with exception space that, conical, the lower attached; part bottom was being truck, wheels, below between could be carried down car load; the press- the centre gravity thus lowering of the circle equal, tensile outwards upon all'parts ure to a much than was used' greater of the iron degree strength a this and, form of the lower form; finally, car of square of the load complete discharge the car facilitated part the bottom removed. when aperture,
through means form, thus appears before a mode em- operation has introduced patentee is ..to cars, equal say, nearly pressure which rests in burden ployed that small load, save the entire all directions by are, that the load, the effects which bottom; movable on the itself, and the tensile strength degree, supports in iron the great same-time, form, reason of at the used, while- load centre of depressed, discharge gravity facilitated. is cor- attained practical .result uncontradicted evidence for.the described patentee; rectly not exaggerated practical showed that he had at the trial states: The specification of his invention. advantage all other articles in coal, heavy cars, requiring with -great injury-to attended lumps, to resist to be bodies constructed great strength vertical sides, as as the well pressure outward on the pressure mass, bottom, due not only ‘pack,’ other tending each mobility among the.lumps *9 Winans v. cars, on shown termed. Experience it is technically be made to a load construction, cannot carry old mode but, I am by my improvement, than own weight; greater than those heretofore durability to make cars of greater enabled coal,” their own double &c. made, which will transport structure described, is the what ascertained thus Having embodies, result attained, practical mode operation of claim cover does the this next inquiry ? is effected this result operation, by at the turned the case trial It was this question upon Court. Circuit made cars defendants had that the showed testimony the form was to the except octagonal similar plaintiff’s, evidence that, was There tending prove instead of circular. uses of such a car, reference practical considered same as the circular. car was the octagonal was James Millhol- other witnesses point Amongst He testified. the defendants. land, who was called by bottom of or of a reduced the car was That' advantage car was conical obtained, whether the octagonal; of a due to the conical bottom, adoption strengthening form was or form, the circular. That the same when the adopted, was octagonal the best to resist the the circular form.was and an boiler, as, instance, steam octagonal pressure, car was form; than the not octagonal one better square one was car; that, than the conical purposes, practical better sides would be as the that a other; many as good polygon car, was as circle; to a equivalent octagon practically, ones-; as the conical witness substantially,, good saw between the two.” ho difference trial, ruled,— at the who district presided judge, described therein, That while the for what good [is] in whole or in conical part, supported body, a conical a mode of indicated for sustaining modes same, and to those truck, drawing carriage vehicles, and not to due to conical rectilinear were alone car was that the defendants’ en- bodies, and it admitted rectilinear, was no that there tirely patent. was, that the claim was limited The substance this ruling mentioned in the specifica- particular geometrical had made cars in that ; and as the defendants tion particular cars made even if the form, there could be no iAfringement, result the same what employing, defendants attained as that fact, the same mode described erroneous. We think ruling the patentee. lleamead. Under our law cannot afor granted merely of form. The act of 21,1793, so declared iii ex- February § *10 terms; and law was not reenacted press' though declaratory 1836, Patent Act of it is a necessarily makes of of law new every system' patents granting inventions. work of of a the form machine is the Merely change a constructor, not of inventor; an such a can- change be not deemed an invention. Nor does the patent plaintiff’s (cid:127)rest such a To the form of an existing change. change machine, and means of such to introduce and em- by change .other as or, mechanical or natural it is ploy powers, termed, a of new mode and thus attain a new and operation, useful result, is the of. a is basis on Such subject. patent. Which rests. plaintiff’s patent Its substance is new mode of means which operation, by result is new obtained. It is this mode of new operation invention, it the character of an and entitles the gives inventor to a is, new mode oi patent; operation law, view of the entitled to thing protection. so his of claim as should, frame patentee may,’ to cover this new mode of he has invented; and the or he so; in this case whether question done he has to one whether restricted his claim particular geome- form. trical There evidence in the casé that other show tending forms do in and, operation, embody fact^ it, means of result, same new and useful produce n is, whether the has limited his to.one claim patentee out the several forms which thus invention. embody'his Now, while it is true, that the so patentee undoubtedly .may his-claim as restrict limit forms, to cover less-than what invented, it to one form of machine, all other particular excluding invention, also his such an inter- though they embody yét should not claim if it can pretation his fairly put upon construed otherwise, reasons: and this for.two 1. Because the is, that, reasonable presumption having just cover invention, whole he intended to right do protect so. Haworth v. Hardcastle, Web. P. C. 484. 2. Because are to be in ac specifications liberally, construed cordance Constitution design laws of the United States, of the use promote progress arts, ful and allow inventors to to their use, retain own (cid:127) which is thing matter of them- common they right, what selves v. have created. 6 Ames 218; Grant v. Pet. Raymond, Howard, 1 3 Id. Sumn. v. 482, 535, 485; Blanchard Sprague, 539; Davoll Minot, 53, 57; Parker v. Brown, 1 Wood. & Ha- v.
[*] 29 v. Denmead. Wináns Tatham, v. 14 How. Le worth, McLean’s R. 372; Roy Harford, v. there Neilson Parke, Baron, quoted; and opinion Id. 470; Burden Win Russell 341; C. v. Cowley, Web. P. 15 Howard. at slow, term,) present (decided words: following The claim of desire to let- secure by I as What claim my‘invention, a car for the making body ters-patent, cone, frustum' coal, &c., in the form of as herein exerted described, the force whereby and does not tend to directions, all load presses equally thejform resists its thereof, equal every part pro- is so reduced which, also, lower part portion, pass and between the axles, the truck frame down within the load without lower the gravity diminishing centre as described. of the car capacity of the car the con- I also claim below extending and the line of frame, the truck draught, necting pieces truck frame, bars of the *11 the connecting passing draught 'car, of bar, described.” through true, machine, describes a is when It patentee generally described, it as that he is understood to claims intend then cover, law nót claim, and does to actually only precise described, but all other forms he has which his forms embody that, rule to it familiar' invention; copy described, is of an mode or infringement, operation although unlike the in form or original such be. copy totally should pro- portions. not rule be to this case ? should this applied Why to is sufficient to this case not that distinguish here say, consists in a and the form, invention change patentee one form claimed only. iri áre almost Patentable improvements machinery always one or more forms of one or made some more changing some mechanical thereby introducing principle or parts, mode not in the machine, of action and so previously existing And, or result. new cases securing improved numerous held, it has been to which copy patentee’s was an had forms and infringement, got infringer described, not and not in terms claimed. If it were proportions so, could arise. If the machine- question-of not no form, of were machine described complained copy, it at of course be once seen to be would an specification, It could be else. It is infringement. nothing only ingenious diversities form presenting appearance proportion, unlike rise to something of tions; which thing patented, give ques- property .valueless, inventors would if 1853 . v. defendant were enough to your say, con- improvement in a form; sisted describe change and claim you but one I have not taken and so form; have not infringed. The answer did not consist in a my improvement form, but in the new employment or powers, in a new mode of embodied in a operation, form means better new or result is it was this produced; constituted invention; have my you copied, changing only form; and that is answer to this justly applicable patent. there be cases in which the Undoubtedly letters-patent include form described and claimed. particular only do Palmer, Brock. seems have been one of Davis cases. But are entire accordance with is th<ose what they stated. alcove The reason such a covers one why only geometrical is not form, has described claimed that patentee form, form because that is only; is capable embody- his invention; and, if the is not ing form copied, consequently, is used. invention not Where form and are it is substance inseparable, enough at form look Where are where the only. they separable; substance in a different whole invention may eopied (cid:127) is the it for of courts and to look form, duty juries through — the substance of the invention which en- was de- form titled inventor patent, secure; found, where that an there is signed and it is not a infringement; defence, it is embodied form in a not de- scribed, and in terms claimed patentee. sometimes add to their declara- Patentees claims an express tion, effect the claim extends the thing patented, be varied. But is un-' however necessary. proportions may (cid:127) The law the claim without the addi- interprets words; . these tion of The exclusive thing patented .the right are secured, if the at to make substantial public liberty it, therefore, And, its form or copies varying proportions. *12 shown its invention, the described his patentee, having that em- claimed it in most perfectly principles, bodies form it, is, claim law, in of deemed to every contemplation in which be he manifests form his invention unless copied, an intention to óf disclaim some those forms. it could Indeed is difficult to rule how other perceive any of be to cases like this. is question How applied, .a practicably, ' as- of this to be be tried?- safely It.may sumed, that neither the nor other constructer any patentee devi- made, or a make, will car circular. exactly practice, ations from near to a true circle will occur. How always BU v. Den'in>ead. it be car'be, in order to then, infringe? circle, May must circle, and, from a true otherwise if elliptical, depart slightly far ? so, how , can be to answer that these the given In our judgment, a true circle as must substan- near questions mode of operation, patentée’s thereby tially embody his as reached invention. kind of result was attain the same It is not cars should that the defendant’s employ necessary it, 01 as he to as invention good advantage employed plaintiff’s the same in
that the result should be must precisely degree. of and.effected kind, employment in "Whether, fact, of in substance.. mode of defeitdant’s ears point invention, in did sense copy the to them and the court above below question jury, explained, evidence erred in not leaving tended to the affirmative. case, prove, ‘ must be reversed. of the.court below judgment n TANEY, Mr. Justice CATRON, Mr. Chief Justice Mr. Jus- dissented. DANIEL, CAMPBELL, tice and Mr. Justice Justice CAMPBELL. Mr. the court this case. from the of I dissent The opinion claims to have constructed a designed car plaintiff' coal of on railroads which shall for the transportation carry - its own load, proportion weight. heaviest ” “ consists in the conical form design adoption His car,” (cid:127)‘for the the load “whereby weight ” “ does directions; in .all tend equally change presses' ” “it to extend down truck,” within the car; permits form lowering “ load,” the. its centre reduced gravity at' bottom its sizé He adding strength durability. invention, is the whole of the claims his' “ of cars, made in the manufacture he has body making in the form of the frustum of a cone.” car a circle It is contains than agreed greater area form is of the same conical best suited perimeter; figure to bottom of within,’ and that the reduced size at the resist’pressure The introduction car favorable to strength. railroad,-for cars transporta- upon, plaintiff, of the loads coal, tion increase was attended by great car. The merits the design proportion Nevertheless, notorious, it is that there are. conceded. frankly does exist a vessels in common domestic very great variety use, or; a conical of the frustum of form,” a. cone,” of articles of for.the reception prime *13 1,853. 345 v.
"Winans Denmead. and demand, water, constant such as coal, necessity food, cloth- &c. It is also true that the circle, ing, properties circular forms alluded to in the are patent plaintiff, un- derstood, and have been appreciated, de- applied every partment mechanic art. One doubt a requisition cannot cars, from the for of a transportation companies diminished and an increased the machinists weight, capacity, upon connected the business, would have been engineers an- swered in the form of promptly by suggestion a-change the car. The merit of seems to consist of his and his scien- perfection clear statement of the design, tific it contains. principle There arises in amind if not my insuperable objectipn strong claim, admission of for conical form,” cone,”, 'or the of the frustum a as an invention. Or that machinist or can by patent engineer appropriate form whose and which understood, are properties universally use, common of those very consequence pur properties, cases poses seems analogous. strictly authority adjudged to me Greenwood, Hotchkiss v. the claim. strongly opposed Winans 207; 11 Cas. v. ; How. 249 Losh Web. v. Hague, Pat. ; 2 2 2 412; Id. 190 Car. Providence Railroad Company, Story, Kir. 3 W. H. Gord. 427. 1022; & & however, invention patentable, Conceding, Court, Circuit the in conceded in the to have been this seems ? The extent of the claim plaintiff professes is, what quiry vehicle, of a which has an in the form to have made improvement forms. in a use, and exists He variety time long form most fitted to have discovered precise professes as the matter his form, He describes in view. objects no other invention, form. For develops applies We are' authorized this he claims patent. and claim and definite conclude, that his precise . the limits of his invention to ascertain were designed exactly Palmer, Brock. Davis form, with an is of an octagonal of the defendants The car contradiction, in no base. There was octagonal pyramidical description, trial, in reference at the evidence given use substantial effects of its operation. as to the nor _ construction, in its of the metal thickness size, employed car does results, one substantial and profitable weight, other, consists in difference not materially vary it is visible palpable. and in form, there facts, of which these Court, The Circuit acting an -that no instructed dispute, ques- do not find I taken had not place. v. court a law fact. compound tion before *14 construction ascertained, all no facts were upon The entitled to those facts was the plaintiff, my judg- opinion, ment. His car to all others. car In superior theory, his The qualifies specification distinguishes. displays equal j load in all directions -of the to tendency pressure form, load; notwithstanding pressure preserve absencé j cross strain centre of lowering thre — load, are advantages possesses su- gravity defendants’. Yet to that of the the experts perior degree say difference the substantial that there no.appreciable results two. afiorded looked be for in a source must extrinsic The cause to Nor is it difficult to detect the mere form vehicles. a source. in the results in Such cause for identity of coal coarse, cumbrous operations transportati The on heavy, of cars nice mathem of the manufacture a- do not admit loads formulas, can thé much adjusted ñor refer- .tical' is a to violent' There percussion ence to and excess in s liability exactness. strains, must for by an extraordinary provided thickness of the material used. Then, weight "of the load is the difference there great, unless will difference in the'1 be no correspondent receipts trans- .companies. portation the theoretical exaggerating The superiority patentee, not. car, overlooked facts form of his those which reduced level of cars Of form value variant widely practical this suit is to own. The object his defect .repair from court extend, that this shall observation. construc- . of his embrace tion, the operation patent, scope every will result form which practice yield equal or substantially, own. his approximate asked for instruction plaintiff, and cir- treated as less' immaterial, áre cumstances” more if the defendants have is claimed constructed cars verdict “ the same on and in the which, principle the same result.” operation, accomplish ' stated in the The circular patent applies only forms. in coal have modes The transportation experi- skill of from the the' enced no plaintiff, change except by to the .circular. the rectilineal from figure to the rectilineal form. The defendant adheres result ears of the two is the same —a more accomplished by .use This result is that coal economical v. desires to but this' cannot be appropriate, plaintiff permitted. Patents, 4, 26, 27, 86, 87, Curtis 88; 408, 411. Story, § In the case of Bemis, Aiken v. 3 Wood. & M. the learned said, When a chooses to cover with his judge patentee the material of which a of his' machine is composed, his when a entirely right different and himself, endangers prosecute inferior material is one which he employed, after had repeated experiment, rejected.” confines his claim to the use of the conical form, and He excludes allusion to other. any any have done so must He have unwil- advisedly. might of his ling assertion of expose validity patent, by other. Can he the' abandon of his right ground patent, now, ask for the exclusive use all cars which, by experi- ment, shall be found to yield which he antici- advantages - for conical cars ? pated The claim *15 that an car to-day'is, is an octagonal infringe- ment of this Will this be the limit to that patent. claim T Who can tell the bounds within which the mechanical industry of n exert itself? country What restraints may freely does this pa- tent this branch of mechanic art ? impose To the incessant and intense escape which competition exists it is not (every department industry, strange persons seek the cover of the act, should contrivance for patent effort of any happy nor construction; should patents be very to obstruct invention, and employed frequently legitimate operations foreseen, deter from of skill and This ingenuity. danger n for, and act. The' provided patentee law, to invention, describe his in such obliged, by exact full, clear, and terms, that from the the invention description, be (cid:127) constructed and used. Its arid modes of must invention shall explained; particulárly specify and clearness, exactness,- out what claims as his point” invention. . Fulness, and preciseness, in the de- particularity, of the invention, its and of the scription matter principle, claimed be invented, will alone fulfil the demands or the Congress wants country. Nothing, administration of this law, mischievous, will more more productive oppressive costly litigation, unjust pretensions of.exorbitant vexatious demands, more injurious labor, than a relaxatiori of these wise and of requisitions act of salutary Congress. In my judgment, legal well interpretation, as the shall have its full interest, that this public require, of this statute language n significance import. this case the full, language clear, and ex- act. The claim is particular specific.. et al. v. Kneelaud
Walworth claim, nor em- my opinion, the specification Neither I therefore the defendants. workmanship respect- brace the. court, which dissent from implies judgment fully contrary.
Order. heard on the cause to be record transcript This came United Court of the States the Circuit District counsel. On and was consideration argued, by Maryland, court, it is here ordered and this whereof, new adjudged by Court in this cause be, of the said Circuit the judgment reversed, costs, same is this cause hereby Court, to the said Circuit be, and the same is remanded hereby de novo. with directions to award venire facias Error, Walworth, Plaintiff James Knee Clinton wife, and Frances land and Hannah Cornelia Fos Infants, their Foster, Friend, and William next ter James Kneeland. against a'party, court who was ordered con- a case was decided State Where .in (cid:127) land, up ground vey brought and he the case court that the certain contrary conveyance-of the land was to the laws of the contract United enough give jurisdiction this court under the 23th is not section .to ^tates, judiciary act. bf ground against iipon opposite party The State court decided him. waa design laws States. innocent of all to contravene the United contract, void, fraudulent even if the had enforced.á But State court court, party losing right in this no he can enforce cannot there- (cid:127) jurisdiction fore take over the case. *16 Court of the case'was Supreme issued up brought This eryor Wisconsin, a writ under 25th State act. section the judiciary of the court. The case is stated in the opinion Smith, Mr. behalf submitted, on a brief--by printed was. Baxter, for the de- Mr. error, argued by plaintiff error. fendants.in in error made the The counsel for the following points. -made in contract this suit 1st. The originated en 3d, 1807, March violation of the act of Congress, approved on lands ceded made “An act settlements titled prevent 2 U. S. Stat. 445. States, the United until authorized law.