Howell Edmunds Jackson

Name: Grant v. Walter — Opinion of the Court
Author: Howell Edmunds Jackson

Summary

“Grant v. Walter — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Howell Edmunds Jackson. It explores elements such as skein, dyeing and disclaimer.

Quotes from Grant v. Walter — Opinion of the Court (Howell Edmunds Jackson)

Howell Edmunds Jackson, Grant v. Walter — Opinion of the Court

“ It is perfectly evident that it would readily occur to any one skilled in the art that, as the skeins are increased in size or width of band, the necessity for lacing in order to preserve the form, and keep the skein in a condition for dyeing, would be correspondingly increased, and that the looser the lacing the more perfect would be the dyeing. Such changes in degree, merely, would not constitute an invention. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Howell Edmunds Jackson, Grant v. Walter — Opinion of the Court

“ It is said by one of complainant's witnesses that such loose lacing as is insisted upon as a requisite for effective dyeing is neither shown in the drawings, nor in the specification, nor claims, but that it should be read into the patent because 'a man that understands his business must know that it must be laced loosely, or that the silk would be spoiled in dyeing,' and that if this were not noticed, or not known, it would be taught him by the first experiment. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Howell Edmunds Jackson, Grant v. Walter — Opinion of the Court

“ The circuit court held that the claims of the patent covered a product, and not a process, and that the patent was void for want of patentable novelty, for the reason that the form of skein described in the specification, and covered by the claims, was well known, and in use, long prior to Grant's invention, which consisted in the method of dyeing and winding silk by the use of such well-known form of skein, and not in the skein itself, and, if valid to any extent, it was only upon the process. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Howell Edmunds Jackson, Grant v. Walter — Opinion of the Court

“ The contention of the appellant is that the skein of the patent should be considered in connection with the specification and knowledge of the art possessed by the persons to whom the specification is addressed, and, if the prior art requires limitations in order to leave validity in the patent, then it is right and proper for the court to read such limitations into the claims by construction ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Howell Edmunds Jackson, Grant v. Walter — Opinion of the Court

“ That answer is, Grant's improvement is a new skein.' So that the whole invention must be tested by the simple question whether the looser lacing, for the purpose of dyeing, over the more tightly-laced skeins, for the purpose of preserving their form and winding qualities while being 'boiled off,' or ungummed, constitutes a patentable invention. Considering the purpose for which it is now claimed, it cannot be anything more than a mere application of an old process to a new use, which does not rise to the dignity of invention ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Howell Edmunds Jackson, Grant v. Walter — Opinion of the Court

“ It says: 'My invention relates to a novel manner of winding silk or other thread upon the reels in a reeling machine preparatory to its being dyed. * * * My improvement consists in winding the silk or other thread upon the reel in the form of a wide band. * * * When the required quantity has been wound, I lace the skein or band * * * so as to divide it into a number of parts, and hold it in its flat or band-like condition.' Grant had a clear idea of the real nub of his invention. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Howell Edmunds Jackson, Grant v. Walter — Opinion of the Court

“ The raw silk having a more delicate thread, and much more liable in handling to become entangled, and therefore less easily wound than when the silk had been brought to a condition of thread, necessitated this cross reeling and lacing to preserve the form of the skein, and to facilitate the transportation and future handling of the silk in its further development in the process of manufacturing. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Howell Edmunds Jackson, Grant v. Walter — Opinion of the Court

“ The fact that the patented article has gone into general use is evidence of its utility, but not conclusive of that, and still less of its patentable novelty. McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U.S. 419, 425, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. ”

Howell Edmunds Jackson

Summary

Quotes from Grant v. Walter — Opinion of the Court (Howell Edmunds Jackson)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature