Computing Scale Co. of America v. Automatic Scale Co.
Citations
- 204 U.S. 609
- 27 S. Ct. 307
- 51 L. Ed. 645
- 1907 U.S. LEXIS 1487
Syllabus
<p>While a combination of old elements producing a new and useful result may be patentable, if the combination is merely the assembling of old elements producing no new ahd useful result, invention is not shown.</p> <p>Where an inventor seeking a broad claim which is rejected, acquiesces in the rejection and substitutes therefor a narrower claim, he cannot after- ’ wards insist that the claim allowed shall be construed to cover that which was previously rejected; and in this case the contention of the inventor is not sustained that after striking out his broad claim he presented and obtained another claim equally broad and is entitled to relief thereunder.</p> <p>Complainant’s patent for improvements in computing scales is of the narrow character of invention which does not, as a pioneer patent would, entitle the patentee to any considerable range of equivalents; but it must be limited to the means shown by the inventor, and in this case the defendant’s construction does not amount to an infringement.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- initial claims rejected based on lack of invention over prior patents
- initial claims rejected based on lack of invention over prior patents
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Day
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
71 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co.Supreme Court· 1997-03-03· cited 1,430×
- Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.Supreme Court· 1908-06-01· cited 504×
- Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co.Supreme Court· 1940-12-09· cited 262×
- Hilton Davis Chemical Co. v. Warner-Jenkinson Company, Inc.Federal Circuit· 1995-08-08· cited 220×
- Festo Corporation v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., A/K/A Smc Corporation, and Smc Pneumatics, Inc.Federal Circuit· 2000-11-29· cited 196×
- United States v. Patrick Cummiskey, United States of America v. Michael ClarkThird Circuit· 1984-03-20· cited 36×
- Victor Cooler Door Co. v. Jamison Cold Storage Door Co.Fourth Circuit· 1930-10-21· cited 34×
- Freeman v. AltvaterEighth Circuit· 1933-07-24· cited 31×
- Lincoln Stores, Inc. v. Nashua Mfg. Co.First Circuit· 1946-07-19· cited 28×
- Demco v. Doughnut MacH. CorporationFourth Circuit· 1932-11-30· cited 27×
- Henry J. Kaiser Company v. McLouth Steel Corp.E.D. Michigan· 1966-07-06· cited 22×
- St. Louis Street Flushing Mach. Co. v. American Street Flushing Mach. Co.Eighth Circuit· 1907-10-22· cited 19×
- Johnson Furnace & Engineering Co. v. Western Furnace Co.Eighth Circuit· 1910-03-28· cited 16×
- Etten v. KauffmanThird Circuit· 1941-06-17· cited 15×
- Stewart-Warner Corporation v. Jiffy Lubricator Co.Eighth Circuit· 1936-02-11· cited 14×
- Knowles v. 138 West Forty-Second Street Corp.Second Circuit· 1930-07-28· cited 11×
- American Graphophone Co. v. Gimbel Bros.S.D. New York· 1916-06-02· cited 10×
- Moon-Hopkins Billing Mach. Co. v. Dalton Adding Mach. Co.Eighth Circuit· 1916-10-16· cited 10×
- Mantz v. KerstingS.D. California· 1939-10-14· cited 9×
- Air Devices, Inc. v. Air Factors, Inc.Ninth Circuit· 1954-03-24· cited 8×
Cites
6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Knapp v. MorssSupreme Court· 1893-11-20· cited 174×
- Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. American Fur Refining Co.Supreme Court· 1905-05-15· cited 161×
- Shepard v. CarriganSupreme Court· 1886-02-01· cited 152×
- Hubbell v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1900-10-22· cited 119×
- Leggett v. AverySupreme Court· 1880-02-18· cited 85×
- Corbin Cabinet Lock Co. v. Eagle Lock Co.Supreme Court· 1893-10-30· cited 75×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.