HENDY
v.
GOLDEN STATE AND MINERS' IRON WORKS

U.S. | 1888-05-14
No. 278
127 U.S. 370 Supreme Court of the United States (1888) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 32 L. Ed. 207 · 8 S. Ct. 1275 · SCDB 1887-254 · 1888 U.S. LEXIS 1997
Cited by 52 cases

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.

Synopsis

Hendy sought to enforce a patent for a feeding cylinder mounted on movable timbers (supported by rollers) to allow easy repositioning of mill equipment during repairs. The Supreme Court affirmed the invalidation of the patent, holding that merely mounting an article on rollers to make it movable does not involve inventive faculty and is therefore not patentable, and that any combination between the rollers and the feeding cylinder was merely an aggregation of parts with no patentable innovation.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Me. Justice Blatchfobd,

Mr. Justice Blatchfobd,

after stating the case, delivered the opinion Of the court.

Infringement is alleged of only the first claim, namely, .“ The feeding cylinder I, mounted upon the movable timbers H H, substantially as and for the purpose above described.” The specification states, in regard to the subject of the first claim, that the improvement consists “in mounting a feed cylinder upon a movable frame or truck, so that it can be readily shifted from place to place when it is desired to repair the mill.” The specification speaks of the timbers H H as being the foundation timbers upon which the feeding cylinder is mounted, and it says that those timbers “ are mounted upon rollers, so that the cylinder and frame can be moved about as desired.” Therefore, “the movable timbers H H” of the claim are timbers made movable by being mounted upon roll-’ ers. The specification also states, that “ the cylinder I is made of cast metal, and has its outer surface formed into chambers or depressions, J J, which are separated from each other by longitudinal partitions, 3L”

It is contended, in-defence, that claim 1 of the patent is really a claim only for making the timbers movable, by mounting them upon rollers, so as to be able to move the cylinder and frame about as desired, and that this required no exercise of any inventive faculty. This seems to be the purport of the invention, as stated in the specification. It is the movable character of the frame on which the feed cylinder is mounted, so that the cylinder and frame may be readily shifted from place to place, when repairs are desired, that is designated as the invention. When the mill is in operation, the movable feature is not brought into play. It is only when the mill is out of operation that the movable feature is to be used. The first claim does not appear to cover the functions or operation of the feeding cylinder I, as a part of the mill when in operation ; and, interpreting it by its own language as well as by that of the description in the specification, it covers only the mounting upon rollers of the timbers which carry the feeding cylinder. Merely putting rollers under an-article, so as to make it movable, when, without the rollers, it would not be movable, does not involve the inventive faculty, and is not patentable. Atlantic Works v. Brady, 107 U. S. 192, 200; Thompson v. Boisselier, 114 U. S. 1, 12, and cases there cited; Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Greenleaf, 117 U. S. 554, 559 ; Pomace Holder Co. v. Ferguson, 119 U. S. 335, 338, and cases there cited.

This defence is one "which can be availed of without setting it up in an answer. Dunbar v. Myers, 94 U. S. 187; Slawson v. Grand Street Railroad Co., 107 U. S. 649; Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U. S. 354, 358.

Moreover, there is no patentable combination between the rollers which make the timbers movable and the feeding cylinder I, mounted upon the timbers. The union of parts is merely an aggregation. The feeding cylinder, mounted upon timbers which have rollers, operates no differently from what it does when mounted upon timbers which have no rollers. Hailes v. Van Wormer, 20 Wall. 353, 368; Reckendorfer v. Faber, 92 U. S. 347, 357; Pickering v. McCullough, 104 U. S. 310, 318; Bussey v. Excelsior Mfg. Co., 110 U. S. 131, 146. There is nothing patentable in the aggregation.

The defendants’ machine has a smooth cylinder, and not a cylinder with chambers or depressions. The specification of the patent describes the cylinder I as having its outer surface formed into chambers or depressions, separated from each other by longitudinal partitions. The cylinder of claim 1 is “the feeding cylinder I,” and, to be such cylinder, must be a cylinder substantially as described, and it is described specifically as having chambers or depressions. The claim cannot be construed to cover a cylinder with a smooth surface, not formed into chambers. Fay v. Cordesman, 109 U. S. 408, 420, 421; Sargent v. Hall Safe & Lock Co., 114 U. S. 63, 86; Shepard v. Carrigan, 116 U. S. 593, 597, 598; White v. Dunbar, 119 U. S. 47, 51, 52. Crawford v. Keysinger, 123 U. S. 589, 606, 607

The deoree of the Cvrouit Court is affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (17 total)

  • Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1950)
    …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 rack. Shenfield v. Nashawannuck Mfg. Co., 137 U. S. 56: Using flat cord instead of round cord for the loop at the end of suspenders. Florshe…
  • Hill v. Wooster, 132 U.S. 693 (U.S. 1890)
    …sselier, 114 U. S. 1, 11, 12. To them may be added Stephenson v. Brooklyn Railroad, 114 U. S. 149; Yale Lock Co., v. Greenleaf, 117 U. S. 544; Gardner v. Herz, 118 U. S. 180; Pomace Holder Co. v. Ferguson, 119 U. S. 335; Hendy v. Miners' Iron Works, 127 U. S. 370, 375; Holland v. Shipley, 127 U. S. 396; Pattee Plow Co. v. Kingman, 129 U. S. 294; Brown v. District of Columbia, 130 U. S. 87; Day v. Fair Haven and Westville Railway Co., ante, 98; Watson v. Cincinnati, Indianapolis &c. Railway Co., ante, 161; Ma…
  • Florsheim v. Schilling, 137 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1890)
    …anufacturing Co., 110 U. S. 131; Phillips v. Detroit, 111 U. S. 604; Stephenson v. Brooklyn Railroad Co., 114 U. S. 149; Beecher Mfg. Co. v. Atwater Mfg. Co., 114 U. S. 523; Thatcher Heating Co. v. Burtis, 121 U. S. 286; Hendy v. Miners' Iron Works, 127 U. S. 370. In the light of these authorities, our judgment is that the appellants’ patent No. 238,100 was for a corset that had been in long and publicly known use, each part of it previously patented ; that it involved nothing original in the construction o…

Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (16 total)

View all 16 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw