Lafferty Mfg. Co. v. Acme Ry., Signal & Mfg. Co.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. On petition of appellee for leave to apply to the Circuit Court for permission to file a supplemental bill, in the nature of a bill of review, for the purpose of introducing newly discovered evidence, the court, at its April session, 1905, announced the following rule: That such -leave will be denied, unless the newly discovered evidence offered, had it been in the original record,…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. On petition of appellee for leave to apply to the Circuit Court for permission to file a supplemental bill, in the nature of a bill of review, for the purpose of introducing newly discovered evidence, the court, at its April session, 1905, announced the following rule: That such -leave will be denied, unless the newly discovered evidence offered, had it been in the original record, Would have probably changed the conclusion to which the court came, and the decree entered thereon. The hearing on the…
1Opinion of the Court
GROSSCUP, Circuit Judge.
In the opinion handed down in this case (138 Fed. 729) it was said:
“A mere substitution of one material for another, does not constitute invention. Florsheim v. Schilling, 137 U. S. 64, 11 Sup. Ct. 20, 34 L. Ed. 574; Gardner v. Herz, 118 U. S. 180, 6 Sup. Ct. 1027, 30 L. Ed. 158; Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Tower, 26 Fed. 451. The mere fact that the cost of the article to the public is thereby cheapened does not give, to the substitution of one material for another, the quality of patentable invention.
“Two claims are made, however, to take the substitution of one material…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Florsheim v. SchillingSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Gardner v. HerzSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Lafferty Mfg. Co. v. Acme Ry. Signal & Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1905
- Celluloid Manuf'g Co. v. TowerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1885
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hagerott v. AdamsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1934
- Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co. v. Columbus Electric & Power Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1927
- Combustion Utilities Corp. v. Worcester Gaslight Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1911