International Telephone Mfg. Co. v. Kellogg Switch Board & Supply Co.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois. This appeal is from, a decree holding that claims 1, 2, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 18 of patent No. 687.499, November 26, 1901, to Dean, for a telephone-transmitter, are valid and infringed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois. This appeal is from, a decree holding that claims 1, 2, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 18 of patent No. 687.499, November 26, 1901, to Dean, for a telephone-transmitter, are valid and infringed. Dean’s general statement of invention and the claims in suit read as follows: “My invention relates to a telephone-transmitter of the granular type, in which a body of granular carbon or similar material is interposed between two electrodes adapted to partake of relative movement to vary…
1Opinion of the CourtBaker, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). Forty odd reference patents were not needed to prove that Dean was not a pioneer in the telephonic art, that he did not originate the granular-carbon type of transmitter, and that he was not the first to provide a means for preventing the packing of the granules. So much he ex*654plicitly admitted in his specification; but at the same time he asserted that his “simple, compact and effective” structure was new and useful. Its utility, its high degree of effectiveness, its commercial success, are unquestioned facts. The novelty of none of the claims is gainsaid…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Elizabeth v. Pavement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Kendall v. WinsorSupreme Court of the United States · 1859
- Consolidated Fruit-Jar Co. v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Ide v. Trorlicht, Duncker & Renard Carpet Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1902
- Universal Adding Mach. Co. v. Comptograph Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1906
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Chicopee Manufacturing Corp. v. Columbus Fiber Mills Co.District Court, M.D. Georgia · 1958
- Amerline Corporation and Honeywell, Inc. v. Cosmo Plastics CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1969
- Procter & Gamble Co. v. Paragon Trade Brands, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1997
- Western Glass Co. v. Schmertz Wire-Glass Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1911
- Oak Industries, Inc. v. Zenith Electronics Corp.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1989
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.