Legal Opinion

Irwin v. Hasselman

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Decided November 3, 1899No. 519PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United Slates for the District . of Indiana. This appeal Is a decree of dismissal entered on final hearing of a bill in equity for alleged infringement of letters patent No. 379,334, for “Improvements in bookbinding,” issued to Michael Ryan, March 13, 1888, and assigned» to the appellant. 80 Fed.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United Slates for the District . of Indiana. This appeal Is a decree of dismissal entered on final hearing of a bill in equity for alleged infringement of letters patent No. 379,334, for “Improvements in bookbinding,” issued to Michael Ryan, March 13, 1888, and assigned» to the appellant. 80 Fed. (342. The drawings, specifications, and claims are set forth in the patent as fol lows: “Fig. 1 Is a perspective view of an open book in which my device is used. Fig. 2 is a perspective view of a sheet forming two leaves, showing a modification of same. Fig. 3 is…

1Opinion of the CourtSeaman, District Judge

An inspection of the several forms of record books which appear as exhibits in this case demonstrates the utility of chat feature of the patent device by which “the leaves of the book are creased and rendered flexible at a line parallel to and a short distance from the back.” It produces a book whereof, in the language of the specifications, the leaves, when open, will “fall and lie substantially flat, and the pages thus exposed present, as nearly as possible, a level surface for convenience in writing and ruling thereon.” By this improvement the well-recognized defect of bulging leaves in…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Loom Co. v. HigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
  2. Topliff v. TopliffSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  3. Morgan Envelope Co. v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1894
  4. Krementz v. S. Cottle Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1893

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Morton v. LlewellynCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1908
  2. Clements v. Pittsburgh Electric Specialties Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1923
  3. Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co. v. Cutter Electric & Manufacturing Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1905
  4. In re ColeCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API