Case Name: McKAY-COPELAND LASTING MACH. CO. v. COPELAND RAPIDLASTER MANUF'G CO.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1897-04-24
Citations: 80 F. 518
Docket Number: No. 199
Parties: McKAY-COPELAND LASTING MACH. CO. v. COPELAND RAPIDLASTER MANUF’G CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 80
Pages: 518–519

Head Matter:
McKAY-COPELAND LASTING MACH. CO. v. COPELAND RAPIDLASTER MANUF’G CO.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
April 24, 1897.)
No. 199.
Patents—Anticipation—Machine for Flanging Counters.
The Hurlbut and Kennard patent, No. 243,917, for a machine for flanging the counters of boots and shoes, is void because of anticipation by the device for bending wood for which a patent was issued to Kriebel, October 24, 1865. 77 Fed. 306, aflirmed.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maine.
This was a suit in equity by the McKay-Oopeland Lasting Machine Company against the Copeland Rapid-Laster Manufacturing Company for alleged infringement of letters patent No. 243,917, issued July 15, 1881, to R. H. Hurlbut and C. E. Kennard, for a machine for flanging the counters of boots and shoes. The circuit court dismissed the bill after a hearing on the merits (77 Fed. 306), and the complainant has appealed.
Frederick P. Fish and James J. Storrow, for appellant.
Elmer P„ Howe and Walter K. Griffin, for appellee.
Before COLT, Circuit Judge, and WEBB and ALDRICH, District Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The whole controversy in this cause is in regard to the first and third claims of the complainant's patent, which two claims are substantially the same. They relate to the single matter of clasping and drawing the leather of shoe counters closely to the last or former. Upon deliberate examination of the device covered by the two claims named, and making due allowance for the nature of the material to be manipulated, we are of opinion that the circuit court correctly held that the invention of the complainant was anticipated by the Kriebel patent, issued October 24, 1865. The decree of the circuit court is affirmed, with costs.