MUNSON
v.
MAYOR, ALDERMEN AND COMMONALTY OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK; MAYOR, ALDERMEN AND COMMONALTY OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK V. MUNSONN
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.
Munson sought a patent for a system consisting of blank books designed to organize and verify bonds and their coupons by pasting them into numbered, ruled spaces on successive pages. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and held that Munson's invention lacked patentable novelty because it merely provided spaces for bonds and rearranged the grouping of coupons compared to the prior Warren system, changes that did not constitute invention under patent law.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Gbay,
after stating the case as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court.
What the plaintiff, in different parts of his specification, calls his “ improvement,” his “ system,” and his “ invention,” consists in providing one or more blank books, resembling common scrap-books, of which each page will hold a bond and its coupons, and has a heading describing the bond, and all the pages are numbered and ruled into spaces, in which the bonds and the coupons, on being presented and-paid, may be pasted in the order of their numbers — the bonds on the successive pages, and the coupons of each bond on the same page with it — or, when any bond or coupon is paid without being surrendered, memoranda concerning it may be made. The claim is for the so preserving, filing and verifying of the bonds and coupons, and for the book so constructed and used.
If upon the face of the specification this could be considered as' an “ art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,” within the meaning of the patent laws, (upon which we express no opinion,) it is quite clear that, in the state of previous knowledge upon the subject, there was no patentable novelty in tbe plaintiff’s scheme; inasmuch as the only difference between it and the earlier scheme of "Warren was that in Warren’s books there was no place for the bonds, and the coupons were grouped according to their dates of payment, instead of being grouped together with the bonds to which they respectively belonged. The providing of spaces for the bonds, and the change in the order of arrangement of the coupons, cannot, upon the most liberal construction of the patent laws, be held to involve any invention.
Decree reversed, wild case remanded to • the Circuit Court, with directions to (dismiss the. bill; the original plaintiff to pay the costs in both counts.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burt v. Evory, 133 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1890)…that not every improvement in an article is patentable. The test is that the improvement must be the product of an original conception. Pearce v. Mulford, 102 U. S. 112, 118; Slawson v. Grand Street Railroad, 107 U. S. 649; Munson v. New York City, 124 U. S. 601, and many other cases. And a mere carrying forward or more extended, application of an original idea — a mere improvement in •degree —is not invention. In Smith v. Nichols, 21 Wall. 112, 118, 119, Mr. Justice Strong, .delivering the opinion of the c…
-
Keszthelyi v. Doheny Stone Drill Co., 59 F.2d 3 (9th Cir. 1932)…tentable. The test is that ihe improvement must, be the product of an original conception, (Pearce v. Mulford, 102 U. S. 112, 118 [26 L. Ed. 93]; Slawson v. Grand Street Railroad, 107 U. S. 649, 2 S. Ct. 663 [27 L. Ed. 576]; Munson v. New York City, 124 U. S. 601, 8 S. Ct. 622 [31 L. Ed. 586], and many other eases;) and a mere carrying forward or more extended application of an original idea — a mere improvement in degree — is not invention. In Smith v. Nichols, 21 Wall. 112, 118, 119 [22 L. Ed. 566], Mr. Ju…