Crawford v. Heysinger

Citations

• 123 U.S. 589
• 8 S. Ct. 399
• 31 L. Ed. 269
• 1887 U.S. LEXIS 2200

Syllabus

<p>APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.</p> <p>Assuming that claims 1 and 2 of reissued letters-patent No. 9803, granted July 12, 1881, to George W. Heyl, assignee of Henry B. Heyl, the inventor, for an “ improvement in devices for inserting metallic staples,” are valid, they are not infringed by the “ Victor tool,” made under and in accordance with letters-patent No. 218,227, granted to William J. Brown, Jr., August 5, 1879, and a second patent, No. 260,365, granted to the same person, July 4; LS82.</p> <p>As to claims 1 and 2 of that reissue, namely, “ 1. -The combination of the stationary staple-support or anvil A', and the sliding staple-guide B, with 'the reciprocating slotted or recessed hammer, operating to insert a staple through layers of stock to be united, ancl simultaneously bend over its projecting ends, substantially as and for the purpose set forth. 2. In a device for inserting metallic staples, the combination of the staple-guide B, anvil A', spring D, and reciprocating driver, provided with the knob G, the whole arranged to operate substantially as and for the purpose set forth,” it must, in view of the language of the claims, and of the state of the art, and of the limitations imposed by the Patent Office, in allowing those claims, be held, that the staple-support or anvil is required to be stationary, and the slotted or recessed hammer or driver to be reciprocating.</p> <p>In the “Victor tool ” the anvil is movable and the hammer or driver is stationary.</p>