PRESTON
v.
MANARD & ANOTHER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Preston sought to patent a hose-reel apparatus, but the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision invalidating the patent because the reel, standard, brace, nozzle-holder, and their combination were all previously known elements, and the specification failed to describe any novel aspect of the reel's size or proportions with sufficient precision. The Court held that allowing the patent would improperly deprive the public of the right to use a well-known apparatus in the only practical manner available.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice-Gray delivered the opinion of the court. After stating the facts as above reported, he continued:
It is unnecessary to consider the difference between the claim in the reissue and the claim in the original patent, because, assuming the reissue not to be invalidated thereby, yet it sets forth no patentable invention. The hose-reél, the standard, the brace,, the nozzle-holder, and their use in combination,' being all old, the description of the hose-reel, in the specification and claim, as “ a. reel of large diametér to allow the water to pass through the hose when partially wound thereon,” is not sufficient to sustain the patent.
The requisite diameter of the reel, and its proportion to the size of the hose, are not defined in the specification, but are left to be ascertained by experiment, or from general knowledge. If the patentee had discovered anything new in the size or proportions of the reel, requisite to allow the water to flow through the hose, he should have described it with such precision-as to enable others to construct the apparatus. The fact that water will flow-through a hose wound on a reel, if the diameter of the reel is large enough, and the curves or angles are not too abrupt, is a matter of common knowledge, which no one can appropriate to his own use, to the exclusion of the public. In any view of the case, the specification describes nothing that ,the patentee is entitled to claim, but only what every one has a right to use without his assistance. Guidet v. Brooklyn, 105 U. S. 550 ; Flood v. Hicks, 2 Bissell, 169; S. C., 4 Fisher Pat. Cas. 156; The King v. Wheeler, 2 B. & Ald. 345, 354; Macnamara v. Hulse, Car. & M. 471, 477; Kay v. Marshall, 7 Scott, 548 ; S. C., 5 Bing. N. C. 492 ; 1 Beavan, 535; 8 Cl. & Fin. 245; West H. L. 682; 2 Webster Pat. Cas. 34, 68, 75, 77, 82, 84.
To sustain this patent would be to deprive the public of the right to arrange and use a well' known apparatus in the only way in which its purpose can be beneficially accomplished.
Decree affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1950)…in place more effectively. Double-Pointed Tack Co. v. Two Rivers Mfg. Co., 109 U. S. 117: Putting a metal washer on a wire staple. Miller v. Foree, 116 U. S. 22: A stamp for impressing initials in the side of a plug of tobacco. Preston v. Manard, 116 U. S. 661: A hose reel of large diameter so that water may flow through hose while it is wound on the reel. Hendy v. Miners’ Iron Works, 127 U. S. 370: Putting rollers on a machine to make it moveable. St. Germain v. Brunswick, 135 U. S. 227: Revolving cue…
-
Bergman v. Aluminum Lock Shingle Corp. of Am., 251 F.2d 801 (9th Cir. 1957)…t is driven in from the rain and wind on the outside or comes from condensation occurring on the inner surface of a shingle. Here again Mr. Justice Douglas’s devastating list of “gadget” patents affords an interesting analogue: “Preston v. Manard, 116 U.S. 661, 6 S.Ct. 695, 29 L.Ed. 763: A hose reel of large diameter so that water may flow through hose while it is wound on the reel.” [Emphasis supplied.] 340 U.S. at page 157, 71 S.Ct. at page 132. Having examined each of the ten prior patents contained i…
-
Reflectolyte Co. v. Luminous Unit Co., 20 F.2d 607 (8th Cir. 1927)…tion'.” . This was held to be top- [*613] vague in description to meet the demands of section 4888. It required resort to experimentation. See also Bullock Elec. Mfg. Co. v. General Elec. Co. (C. C. A.) 149 F. 409; Preston v. Manard, 110 U. S. 661, 6 S. Ct. 695, 29 L. Ed. 763; Walker on Patents, 5th Ed., secs. 174, 178. And so we think the rule of comity, urged upon us, ought not to be applied. Mast, Foos & Co. v. Stover Mfg. Co., 177 U. S. 485, 20 S. Ct. 708, 44 L. Ed. 856. On defendant’s appeal the decr…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Guidet v. Brooklyn, 105 U.S. 550 (U.S. 1881)