US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for

GARDNER V. HERZ, 118 U. S. 180 (1886)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 118 U. S. 180 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Gardner v. Herz, 118 U.S. 180 (1886)

Gardner v. Herz

Argued April 19, 1886

Decided May 10, 1886

118 U.S. 180


Claim 2 of reissued letters patent No. 9,094, granted to William Gardner, Oliver L. Gardner and Jane E. Gardner, February 24, 1880, for an improvement in chair seats, the original patent, No. 127,045, having been granted to George Gardner and Gardner & Gardner, as assignees of George Gardner, as inventor, May 21, 1872, and having been reissued as No. 7203, to George Gardner, William Gardner and Jane E. Gardner July 4, 1878, namely,

"2. A chair seat made of laminae of wood glued together, with the grains in one layer crossing those of the next, concave on the upper surface, convex on the lower surface, and perforated, as a new article of manufacture, substantially as set forth,"

does not claim any patentable invention.

A patent cannot be taken out for an article, old in purpose and shape and mode of use, when made for the first time out of an existing material, and with accompaniments before applied to such an article, merely because the idea has occurred that it would be a good thing to make the article out of that particular old material.

The suggestion in the second reissue that "the seat is adapted to be secured to any chair frame, as it is easily cut and fitted to the same" is not found in the original patent, or in the first reissue, and is new matter so far as anything in it can be invoked to confer patentability on the article.

The question as to whether the thing patented amounts to a patentable invention may be raised by a defendant in a suit for infringement, independently of any statutory permission so to do.

Under the Constitution and the statute, a thing, to be patentable, must not only be new and useful, but it must amount to an invention or discovery. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 118 U. S. 181

In equity. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™