Dodge v. Ohio Valley Pulley Works

Citations

• 101 F. 581
• 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3478

Syllabus

<p>1. Patents — Substitution op Material.</p> <p>It was not invention to substitute wood for iron, especially in view of • the well-known utility of paper or leather as equivalents for iron. The use of wood as an equivalent for iron in many arts of more or less analogy deprives its substitution in the art of making pulleys of all claims of discovery.</p> <p>2. Same — Combination.</p> <p>Separate split thimbles, being old and well known in the art as an element of combination with a separable wood pulley, cannot be sustained, unless the claim is limited to the peculiar structural devices of the pulley described and claimed in the patent.</p> <p>3. Same — Novelty.</p> <p>The feature of “rim contact” is an essential feature of the separable pulley in the Dodge and Philion patent, No. 260,462. Defendants’ pulley, which does not have the rim contact, but uses struts between the spoke-arms, and which keeps the rims from contact, does not infringe.</p> <p>4. Same — Construction op Claim.</p> <p>Where a claim calls for a specific element asa feature of the combination, it is not admissible to broaden the claim so as to include a different and older method of consi ruction.</p> <p>5. Same — Plurality.</p> <p>The claim for patent upon a separable pulley of certain specific construction, in combination with “a separable split thimble interposed between said shaft and pulley,” cannot be broadened to cover a plurality of bushings, which is a mere carrying- forward of the original idea.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>