Supreme Court Patent Decision
by Scientific American November 14th, 2023
Too Long; Didn't Read
A United States patent was granted May 23, 1854, to John Myers and Robert G. Eunson for a wood-sawing machine for cutting boards into thin stuff for making picture frame and mirror backs. One of the principal claims was for the employment of two deflecting plates, one on each side of the circular saw, by which both sides of the sawed stuff, as fast as it was cut, was slightly deflected so as not to bind upon the saw. Suit was brought by the patentee against Dunbar and Hopper for infringement, and judgment was given in favor of the patentees, in the United States Circuit Court, this city, the damages awarded being $9,121. The defendants thereupon took an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, which tribunal has reversed the finding of the Circuit Court and dismissed the complaint. It was held by the Supreme Court that, inasmuch as the use of a single deflecting plate was old, well known, and in common use, it was simply an exercise of ordinary mechanical skill, and not a patentable invention, to employ a second deflecting plate, although the superiority of the double deflectors, for certain kinds of work, appears to be conceded.
Scientific American, Volume XXXVI., No. 8, February 24, 1877 by Various, is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. You can jump to any chapter in this book here. Supreme Court Patent Decision.
Supreme Court Patent Decision.
A United States patent was granted May 23, 1854, to John Myers and Robert G. Eunson for a wood-sawing machine for cutting boards into thin stuff for making picture frame and mirror backs. One of the principal claims was for the employment of two deflecting plates, one on each side of the circular saw, by which both sides of the sawed stuff, as fast as it was cut, was slightly deflected so as not to bind upon the saw. Suit was brought by the patentee against Dunbar and Hopper for infringement, and judgment was given in favor of the patentees, in the United States Circuit Court, this city, the damages awarded being $9,121. The defendants thereupon took an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, which tribunal has reversed the finding of the Circuit Court and dismissed the complaint. It was held by the Supreme Court that, inasmuch as the use of a single deflecting plate was old, well known, and in common use, it was simply an exercise of ordinary mechanical skill, and not a patentable invention, to employ a second deflecting plate, although the superiority of the double deflectors, for certain kinds of work, appears to be conceded.
About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books.
This book is part of the public domain. Various (2006). Scientific American, Volume XXXVI., No. 8, February 24, 1877. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/19406/pg19406-images.html
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org, located at https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html
L O A D I N G
. . . comments & more!
. . . comments & more!
About Author
TOPICS
THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN...
RELATED STORIES
A Clock Collector #non-fiction
Invalid Date
10 Websites That You Should Know About #books
Invalid Date
10 books I wish I read before starting up #books
Invalid Date
