Ideal Stopper Co. v. Crown Cork & Seal Co.

Citations

• 131 F. 244
• 65 C.C.A. 436
• 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4291

Syllabus

<p>X. Patents — Anticipation by Paper Patent — Identity of Ideas.</p> <p>In determining the question of identity of the inventive idea Involved in two patents, it is not a sufficient answer to say of an alleged anticipation that it was a mere paper patent, and that the device had never been operative or commercially successful, because prior existing conditions may not have stimulated full development</p> <p>2. Same.</p> <p>A patentee cannot be denied invention because of a prior patent for a device which never came into use, unless the idea upon which his patent is predicated is so clearly set forth or suggested in the alleged anticipating patent that a mechanic with such patent before him could by the exercise of mere mechanical skill so modify proportions or change the mode of operation as to overcome the difficulties which excluded the prior device from commercial utility.</p> <p>8. Same — Bottle Stoppers.</p> <p>The Painter reissue patent, No. 11,685 (original No. 540,072). for a bottle stopper, which consists of a cup-shaped disk of material having a permanent flexion, which is inserted in the neck of the bottle and there expanded into a groove having a shoulder below, and in which a gasket has been placed, thus making a tight stopper, was not anticipated by the British patent to Young, No. 12,247 of 1848, which does not cover a stopper, but merely a disk designed to be expanded on the top of a cork or other stopper, to hold the same in place, performing the function of the wiring otherwise used for that purpose.</p> <p>¶ 1- See Patents, vol. 38, Cent. Dig. § 73.</p>