Stilwell-Bierce & Smith-Vaile Co. v. Eufaula Cotton Oil Co.

Citations

• 117 F. 410
• 54 C.C.A. 584
• 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4448

Syllabus

<p>1. Patents—Construction of Claims—Reference to Specification.</p> <p>When the language of a claim for a combination includes an element only described in general terms, the court may look to the specification to ascertain its meaning, and the claim may be limited by the specification, especially where it contains the expression “substantially as described,” and the element in the particular form described in the specification is essential to the production of the result which is its most important function.</p> <p>2. Same—Invention—New Combination of Old Elements.</p> <p>A combination of old elements, if it is novel and produces a new and useful result, may be patentable.</p> <p>8. Same—Scope—Incidental Advantages of Invention.</p> <p>A patentee is not required to describe in full all the beneficial functions of his invention; but if a thing accomplished is a necessary consequence of the improvement made and described, making it obvious that the inventor intended it, though not specifically pointed out, he is entitled, to the benefit thereof in construing his patent.</p> <p>4. Same—Anticipation—Use of Old Element to Perform New Function.</p> <p>A patent for a combination in which one of the parts performs a new and important function in the operation of the machine is not anticipated as to such feature by a prior patent for a combination in which a similar part was used in a different place, where it did not perform such function.</p> <p>6. Same—Invention.</p> <p>Simply to do by a steam attachment, without novelty of application or operation, what in the operation of prior machines had been done by hand, does not constitute invention.</p> <p>6. Same—Infringement—Oil Meal Cooker and Cake-Former.</p> <p>The Yaile and Tompkins patent, No. 421,454, for a combined cooker and cake former for oil meal, was not anticipated, discloses patentable invention, and is valid as to claims 1, 2, 4, and 9. Claim 3 is invalid as too broad. Said valid claims also held infringed.</p>