Mead-Morrison Mfg. Co. v. Exeter Mach. Works
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Appeal_ from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Chas. B. Witmer, Judge. Suit in equity by the Mead-Morrison Manufacturing Company against the Exeter Machine Works. Decree for defendant, and complainant appeals. Reversed.
1Opinion of the Court
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
This case centers on the presence or absence of invention in patent No. 722,613, granted March 10, 1903, to Alnion F. Norris for hoisting apparatus. The novelty and utility of the device are clear. The court below, in an opinion reported at 215 Fed. 731, held 1he patent was invalid for lack of invention. From a decree so adjudging and dismissing the bill the owner of the patent appealed.
[1,2] Taking the hoisting art, in which Norris’ device has been widely used, as conveniently illustrative, we may say the proofs show that *490prior to Norris’ patent, motive power for…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Loom Co. v. HigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Burdett-Rowntree Mfg. Co. v. Standard Plunger Elevator Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1911
- J. L. Mott Iron Works v. Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1908
- Standard Plunger Elevator Co. v. Burdett-Rowntree Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1912
- Mead Morrison Mfg. Co. v. Exeter Mach. WorksDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1914
3Cited by4 opinions
- Hoeltke v. C. M. Kemp Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1936
- Shingle Product Patents, Inc. v. GleasonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1954
- Eclipse Mach. Co. v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1918
- Hoeltke v. C. M. Kemp Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1936