Harvey Hubbell, Inc. v. American Brass & Copper Co.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Opinion of the CourtHough, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). Although the patent is for a socket for electrical lamps, the claims in suit relate solely to the mechanics of providing for the circuit, its making and brealdng. Let it be assumed that the device is clever, and has attained a reasonable measure of commercial success — the questions remain as always — what did the patentee really add to the sum of human know!*49edge, and how did he define in his claims the addition which he disclosed in' his specification.
Tregoning came into a crowded art; the field of invention for mechanical arrangement of circuit carrying…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
- McClain v. OrtmayerSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Winans v. DenmeadSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
- Evans v. Hall Printing Press Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1915
3Cited by4 opinions
- R. H. Buhrke Co. v. Brauer Bros. Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1929
- Bryant Electric Co. v. Reno Sales Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1926
- Engler v. General Electric Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1943
- Deats Sash & Door Co. v. EvelethCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1934