Summary

Portrait of William Burnham Woods William Burnham Woods Slawson v. Grand Street — Opinion of the Court

It would ill become a court of equity to render money decrees in favor of a complainant for the infringement of a patent which the court could see was void on its face for want of invention. Every suitor in a cause founded on letters patent should, therefore, understand that the question whether his invention is patentable or not, is always open to the consideration of the court, whether the point is raised by the answer or not.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William Burnham Woods William Burnham Woods Slawson v. Grand Street — Opinion of the Court

It was never their object to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufactures.' And it was held that the placing of a screw for dredging at the stem of a screw-propeller, when the dredging had been previously accomplished by turning the propeller stern foremost and dredging with the propelling screw, was not a patentable invention.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William Burnham Woods William Burnham Woods Slawson v. Grand Street — Opinion of the Court

It is not a combination of the fare-box, having one glass panel with an additional glass panel, but is a mere duplication of the glass panel. Doubtless, a fare-box with two glass panels, arranged as described in the patent, is better than a fare-box with only one. But it is not every improvement that embodies a patentable invention.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature