Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Brown v. District of Columbia

Brown v. D.C., 130 U.S. 87 (1889)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1889-03-11
Topic
general

Me. Chief Justice Fullee delivered the opinion of the court: Was a wood pavement “ composed of blocks, each- side having a single plain surface and one or more of the sides being inclined, and the blocks being so laid. on their larger ends as to form wedge-shaped grooves on spaces to receive concrete or other suitable filling,” patentable April 5, 1870, in view of the state of the art ? ' Chambers had, in. 1824, described a pavement of pyramidal stones, twelve inches square at the base, eight inches square at the apex, and ten inches high, placed with their larger end downward, and the interstices filled with loose materials insoluble in water. Lindsay’s invention, in 1825, comprised ptones made of a wédge-shaped form, laid with their broadest ends downwards, .leaving a considerable space between them tó be closed with smaller wedge-formed stones, with fine gravel or grout worked between them. . Nicholson’s pavement was composed of blocks of wood laid in rows across the street, with spaces obtained by interposing narrow wooden strips .between the blocks, to be filled with concrete or other suitable filling.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Brown v. District of Columbia. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
26 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Patent Law — Anticipation Substituting blocks of wood for blocks of stone of the same shape in constructing a pavement does not involve a new mode of construction or develop anything substantially new in the resulting pavement, and is therefore not patentable as an invention. 130 U.S. at 101
  2. Patent Law — Anticipation A wood pavement composed of blocks having one or more inclined sides, laid on their larger ends so as to form wedge-shaped spaces or grooves to receive concrete or other filling that acts as a key to bind the blocks together, is not patentably novel where prior patents disclose the formation of such wedge-shaped filling spaces by laying blocks with inclined sides, larger ends downward, using filling as a key, and employing wooden blocks in that manner. 130 U.S. at 100-102
  3. Patent Law — Anticipation Where a patented combination simply embraces blocks of the same shape and material and similar filling, applied in substantially the same way and producing substantially the same results as in prior patents, it cannot be regarded as possessing patentable novelty. 130 U.S. at 102
  4. Patent Law — Article of Manufacture A patent granted for novelty in the method of making a paving block, and not for novelty in the block itself or in a pavement constructed of it, does not support a claim to the block as an article of manufacture where blocks having all the peculiarities set forth may be manufactured without resorting to the patented method. 130 U.S. at 103
  5. Patent Law — Invention versus Mechanical Skill Cutting a paving block so as to produce the grain in a particular relation to its bevelled sides, while avoiding waste of material, requires only simple mechanical skill and does not involve invention; nor does the use of a rest or guide in presenting material to saws, where such guides were previously known. 130 U.S. at 104-105