Dodge Mfg. Co. v. Ohio Valley Pulley Works

Citations

• 101 F. 584
• 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3479

Syllabus

<p>1; Patents — Invention.</p> <p>The third claim of the McNeal patent, No. 351,064, involved nothing but the method of strengthening the parts of a wooden separable pulley by means of a stay-bolt extending from the arms of the spoke-bars to the pulley rim. The novelty is doubtful, in view of prior analogous uses in the arts.</p> <p>8.. Same — Construction.</p> <p>The claim is entitled to only the most narrow construction, and must be confined to the stay-bolt and its screw-nut. Defendants use a wooden pin with glue to lock the parts together, and do not infringe.</p> <p>8. Same — Novelty.</p> <p>•■ The'Philion patent, No. 368,490, which involves the making of a pulley rim by gluing together the abutting ends of a number of segments to form an individual rim, and, second, íd gluing together a number of these individual rims and subjecting them to pressure, involves no invention, in view of the Dodge and Philion patent, No. 260,462. It is a mere carrying forward of old ideas, and does not involve invention.</p> <p>4.. Same — Process. -</p> <p>The method of uniting segments together and rims together by means of glue does not seem to constitute a process, but involves only mechanical operation.</p> <p>E. Same — Novelty.</p> <p>The Dodge patent, No. 456,722, for an angular hub-block bored to fit. a shaft, and detachably connected with the spoke-arms of a separable wood pulley, does not involve Invention, in view of the prior Dodge patent, No. 260,402. The angular hub-block or bushing of the one patent is not different in function from the round thimble or bushing of the other patent. It is a change of form without producing new results.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>