New York Scaffolding Co. v. Chain Belt Co.

Citations

• 254 U.S. 32
• 41 S. Ct. 21
• 65 L. Ed. 116
• 1920 U.S. LEXIS 1232

Syllabus

<p>Patent No. 959,008, claims 1 and 3, to Elias H. Henderson, for improvements in scaffold-supporting means, exhibits no invention over the prior art. Pp. 34, et seq. New York Scaffolding Co. v. Liebel-Binney Construction Co., ante, 24.</p> <p>The fact that a change in a composite instrumentality was readily made may be evidence that the change was the result of mere mechanical facility as opposed to invention. P. 36.</p> <p>Advantages found in a patented device may count in favor of the patentee though he did not discern them when he secured his patent; but if the device is only an alteration of an earlier patented device', involving no invention, they redound to the benefit of the earlier patentee though he also was unawarg, of them and did not attribute them to his invention. P. 37.</p> <p>245 Fed. Rep. 747, reversed.</p>