Clark v. Bousfield
Supreme Court of the United States
On certificate of division- between the judges of the-Circuit Court for the Northern District of Ohio, the case being this: The Patent Act of July 4th, 1836, “ to promote the progress of the useful arts,” authoi’ized the patenting of any “ new and useful art, machine, manufacture or composition of matter,” and gives an exclusive right to the patentee for a term of fourteen years,, with a privilege of renewal for seven in certain cases, but this act did- not allow a patent…
Read the full summary
On certificate of division- between the judges of the-Circuit Court for the Northern District of Ohio, the case being this: The Patent Act of July 4th, 1836, “ to promote the progress of the useful arts,” authoi’ized the patenting of any “ new and useful art, machine, manufacture or composition of matter,” and gives an exclusive right to the patentee for a term of fourteen years,, with a privilege of renewal for seven in certain cases, but this act did- not allow a patent for mere designs. The eleventh section of an act of March 2d, 1861, entitled “An act in addition to an act to promote the…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Nelson
It will be seen by reference to the eleventh section of the' act of 1861; that if the second claim is patentable under'this section, it must be a claim for an original design or impression, or ornament, or pattern, or picture, and the like,-wholly irrespective of the means of producing it. The patent is simply for the-design, &c., itself.
In order to understand the full meaning of- this second claim, it will be useful to settle the meaning of the first, as the two ate intimately connected.
The first, as' we have .seen, is for constructing the bed for the elastic material used in graining…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Clark v. BousfieldSupreme Court of the United States · 1870