Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Wicke v. Ostrum

Wicke v. Ostrum, 103 U.S. 461 (1881)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1881-02-28
Topic
bankruptcy

Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court. The patent sued on in this case is for a machine for nailing boxes, invented by George Wicke. Before this invention nails *468 were driven singly, and by hand. By the machine more than one could be driven at the same time.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Wicke v. Ostrum. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
24 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Patent Law — Claim Construction Patent claims must be read in connection with the specification to which they relate in order to make them intelligible and to ascertain what the inventor intended to secure. 103 U.S. 461, 464 (1880)
  2. Patent Law — Patentability of Combinations Where the elements of a machine are separately old and well known, the inventor cannot patent their separate use, but he may claim a new and useful combination of those old elements, together with all mechanical equivalents of the several elements known at the time of the invention when used in the same combination. 103 U.S. 461, 464 (1880)
  3. Patent Law — Combination Patents In a machine requiring the combination of all its several elements for successful operation, omission of any one element or its mechanical equivalent produces a combination that is a different machine and therefore does not infringe the patent. 103 U.S. 461, 464-65 (1880)
  4. Patent Law — Infringement A machine that achieves the same general result as the patented machine by a different mode of operation, dispensing with two elements indispensable to the patented combination and without substituting mechanical equivalents for them, does not infringe. 103 U.S. 461, 465 (1880)
  5. Patent Law — Infringement Claims for the combination of a cam, gate, and treadle, or of an adjustable carriage, table, and slide, with the elements of other claims are infringed only where those components are used in combination with the other patented elements; their use apart from that combination, even if they would otherwise be equivalents, does not infringe. 103 U.S. 461, 465-66 (1880)