Search Supreme Court Cases

CRAWFORD V. HEYSINGER, 123 U. S. 589 (1887)

U.S. Supreme Court

Crawford v. Heysinger, 123 U.S. 589 (1887)

Crawford v. Heysinger

Argued November 29, 1887

Decided December 12, 1887

123 U.S. 589


Assuming that claims 1 and 2 of reissued letters patent No. 9803, granted July 12, 1881, to George W. Heyl, assignee of Henry R. Heyl, the inventor, for an "improvement in devices for inserting metallic staples," are valid, they are not infringed by the "Victor tool," made under and in accordance with letters patent No. 218,227, granted to William J. Brown, Jr., August 5. 1879, and a second patent, No. 260,365, granted to the same person, July 4, 1882.

As to claims 1 and 2 of that reissue, namely,

"1. The combination of the stationary staple support or anvil A', and the sliding staple guide B, with the reciprocating slotted or recessed hammer, operating to insert a staple

Page 123 U. S. 590

through layers of stock to be united and simultaneously bend over its projecting ends, substantially as and for the purpose set forth."

"2. In a device for inserting metallic staples, the combination of the staple guide B, anvil A', spring D, and reciprocating driver, provided with the knob G, the whole arranged to operate substantially as and for the purpose set forth,"

it must, in view of the language of the claims, and of the state of the art, and of the limitations imposed by the Patent Office in allowing those claims, be held that the staple support or anvil is required to be stationary, and the slotted or recessed hammer or driver to be reciprocating.

In the "Victor tool," the anvil is movable and the hammer or driver is stationary.

Bill in equity to restrain alleged infringement of letters patent and for an accounting. Decree for complainants. Respondent appealed. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.

Powered by Justia US Supreme Court Center: CRAWFORD V. HEYSINGER, 123 U. S. 589 (1887)

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.