Case Name: Boyd v. Janesville Hay Tool Co.
Court: United States Circuit Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1888-11-09
Citations: 37 F. 887
Docket Number: 
Parties: Boyd v. Janesville Hay Tool Co.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 37
Pages: 887–888

Head Matter:
Boyd v. Janesville Hay Tool Co.
(Circuit Court, W. D. Wisconsin.
November 9, 1888.)
1. Patents eok Inventions—Anticipation—Hay Et/evatob.
Letters patent to John M. Boyd, No. 300,687, dated June 17, 1884, are void for want of novelty, being anticipated by prior patents.
S. Same—Patentability.
Mere differences of form and mechanics, which do not involve invention, are not patentable.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
In Equity.
This was a bill for infringement of letters patent of the United States No. 300,687, to John M. Boyd, for hay elevators. The defendant man ufactured hay carriers under letters patent of the United States No. 279-869, to Prank B. Strickler. The defenses were want of novelty and non-infringement.
Erwin & Benedict, for complainant.
Offield &; Towle, for defendant.
Publication delayed by failure to obtain copy of opinion at timo ol delivery.

Opinion:
Bunn, J.
The best judgment I have been able to form in this case from the evidence and from an inspection of the various patents and machines introduced on the hearing is this That the complainant's device is anticipated by the various patents introduced by the defendant; especially by the Walters patent, the Brower patent, the Church patent;, the Jordon patent, the Kirch patent, the Hennyton patent, the Hustis patent, the Drake patent, and the Van Sickle patent. That in view of the several patents and machines, all prior to that of complainant, and apparently accomplishing substantially the same results by substantially the same means, there was very little left upon that line for inventors to work upon, and that the difference between the complainant's device and those preceding it is a difference of form and mechanics, and not one of art and invention. Complainant's bill dismissed, with costs.