Legal Opinion

Miner v. T. H. Symington Co.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Decided October 5, 1915No. 2169PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois; Arthur L. Sanborn, Judge. Suit in equity by the T. H. Symington Company against William H. Miner. Decree for complainant, and defendant appeals.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois; Arthur L. Sanborn, Judge. Suit in equity by the T. H. Symington Company against William H. Miner. Decree for complainant, and defendant appeals. Appellee brought suit to restrain infringement of the four claims of the Emerick patent, No. 693,643, for draft rigging for cars, granted February 18, 1902, on application filed May 24, 1901. The object of the invention, as claimed by the inventor, was to provide a draft rigging device wherein the coupling bar could be easily replaced.…

1Opinion of the CourtKohlsaat, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above).

[1] There are no new elements in appellee’s device. It must depend entirely on the arrangement of its parts. What it particularly claims to accomplish is convenience in getting at the coupler bar and spring parts in case of breakage or other causes for access to them. Manifestly such a patent must be narrow. In the draft rigging art slight advances, especially such as are time-saving or convenient, may in the multiplicity of the applications be of considerable moment. Thus, if it be true that the device of the patent in suit provides a simple, easy, and…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Bates v. CoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  2. Union Typewriter Co. v. L. C. Smith & Bros.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania · 1909
  3. Eck v. KutzU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1904
  4. Turner Brass Works v. Appliance Mfg. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois · 1909

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Lowell v. TriplettCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1935
  2. Wirebounds Patents Co. v. Chicago Mill & Lumber Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1916
  3. Barber v. Otis Motor Sales Co.District Court, N.D. New York · 1920

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API