National Mach. Co. v. Wheeler & Wilson Manuf'g Co.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
'Appeals from . the Circuit Court of tbe United States for tbe Southern District of New York. These are cross appeals from a decree of the circuit court, Southern district of New York, which sustained the validity of United States patent No. 447,791, granted March 10, 1891, to James B. .Osterhout, and found infringement of two claims and noninfringement of seven others. The patent is for a machine for cutting and stitching button holes.
Read the full summary
'Appeals from . the Circuit Court of tbe United States for tbe Southern District of New York. These are cross appeals from a decree of the circuit court, Southern district of New York, which sustained the validity of United States patent No. 447,791, granted March 10, 1891, to James B. .Osterhout, and found infringement of two claims and noninfringement of seven others. The patent is for a machine for cutting and stitching button holes. The specification states that: "One general object of this invention is to provide buttonhole sewing machines with practically successful cutting mechanisms,…
1Opinion of the CourtLacombe, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts). Machines of this general character comprise work-moving mechanism, stitching mechanism, and cutting mechanism. With the cutting mechanism only is this suit concerned. The threads which surround and reenforce the sides of a buttonhole extend from the edge of the buttonhole backward into the cloth, being inserted in the cloth by a succession of alternate stitches, known as “edge stitch” and “depth stitch.” The machines that make these stitches operate in one of two ways: either the cloth feeds forward lengthwise of the buttonhole, without any sidewise to and fro…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Stoody Co. v. Mills Alloys, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1933
- Bird v. Elaborated Roofing Co. of BuffaloCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1919
- Veaux v. Southern Oregon Sales, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1941