Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

55 F. 78

Docket No. 40.

Masten v. Hunt

First Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided April 13, 1893.)

First Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1893-04-13

<p>1. Patents for Inventions — Construction of Claim — Combination.</p> <p>Letters patent No. 321,833, issued July 7, 1S85, to Cornelius E. Masten, for a firecracker, covers, in claim 1, the match, B, the fuse, 0, in combination with the solid plug, D, and body, A, substantially as set forth. The specification makes no reference to the prior state of the art, and merely states that the invention produces “a more desirable article” “than is now in ordinary use,” without particularizing the points constituting the improvement. Held, that the presumption of novelty. applies to the combination as a whole, and, in the absence of evidence as to the prior state of the art the court has no power to declare that the match, B, or its equivalent was not essential, and to hold that a like cracker, with a continur ous fuse, is an infringement. 51 Fed. Sep. 21G, affirmed.</p> <p>2. Same.</p> <p>The use of the conjunction “and” between the words “match, B,” and “fuse, C,” does not show that the match and fuse constitute but one element, of which a continuous fuse would be the equivalent. 51 Fed. Hep. 216, affirmed.</p>

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently October 1903

3 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Opinion by NELSON · Decided 1893-04-13

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶11. Patents for Inventions — Construction of Claim — Combination.

¶2Letters patent No. 321,833, issued July 7, 1S85, to Cornelius E. Masten, for a firecracker, covers, in claim 1, the match, B, the fuse, 0, in combination with the solid plug, D, and body, A, substantially as set forth. The specification makes no reference to the prior state of the art, and merely states that the invention produces “a more desirable article” “than is now in ordinary use,” without particularizing the points constituting the improvement. Held, that the presumption of novelty. applies to the combination as a whole, and, in the absence of evidence as to the prior state of the art the court has no power to declare that the match, B, or its equivalent was not essential, and to hold that a like cracker, with a continur ous fuse, is an infringement. 51 Fed. Sep. 21G, affirmed.

¶32. Same.

¶4The use of the conjunction “and” between the words “match, B,” and “fuse, C,” does not show that the match and fuse constitute but one element, of which a continuous fuse would be the equivalent. 51 Fed. Hep. 216, affirmed.

¶5Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts.

¶6In Equity. This was a suit by Cornelius E. Masten against Edward S. Hunt and others for the infringement of letters patent Ho. 321,833, issued July 7, 1885, for a firecracker. The circuit court, dismissed the bill; its opinion, which is adopted by the circuit *79court of appeals, together -with a full statement of the facts of the ease, being reported in ñl Fed. Hep. 216. The complainant appeals.

¶7Affirmed.

¶8Charles G. Morgan and John H Richardson, for appellant.

¶9James E. Mayna flier, for appellees,

¶10Before COLT, Circuit Judge, and NELSON and WEBB, District Judges.

¶11NELSON, District Judge.

¶12We agree with the learned circuit judge who decided this case in the court below, for the reasons given in Ms opinion, which we adopt as the opinion of this court, that the appellant has shown, no infringement of his patent by the appellees. -1 common safety fuse inserted through a plug, such as Is used by the appellees in the manufacture of cannon crackers — -a device as old as the art of Masting, — cannot possibly Toe an equivalent for the combined fuse and match described in the first claim of the patent.

¶13Decree affirmed.

/55/f1d/78 · .json · Public domain