Case Name: COLLINS v. GLEASON
Court: United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1895-06-28
Citations: 68 F. 915
Docket Number: 
Parties: COLLINS v. GLEASON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 68
Pages: 915–916

Head Matter:
COLLINS v. GLEASON.
(Circuit Court S. D. New York.
June 28, 1895.)
1. Patents — Novelty.
The discovery that sheets of celluloid, which, by reason of their frangibility. were not adapted for use as card cases and book covers, could be sewed between leather bindings, and held by their stitches so as to be used for these purposes, held to be sufficiently novel to support a patent.
2. Same — Oklmjloid Bindings.
The Collins patent, No. 405,874, for celluloid bindings of leather for card cases and book covers, held valid and infringed.
This was a bill in equity by Kate J. Collins against Thomas Jay Gleason for infringement of a patent for bindings of leather for celluloid card cases and book covers.
Edwin H. Brown and James 0. Chapin, for plaintiff.
L. J. Morrison, for defendant.

Opinion:
WHEELER, District Judge.
This suit is brought upon patent No. 405,874, dated June 25, 1889, and granted to the plaintiff, for celluloid bindings of leather for card cases and book covers. The defenses set up in the answer are, in substance, that the specification is insufficient; that, to deceive the public, it was made to contain too much, — with denials that the invention was of any utility; that it was, "in any respect, novel"; and of infringement. The defenses set up wholly fail, and the denials, except as to novelty, are overcome; and as no prior knowledge and use by any person is set up, with place, as required by the statute, or at all, the question of novelty rests upon this general denial, to be determined, as to pat-entability, upon common knowledge. Celluloid sheets apparently were not, and, from their frangibility,' could not well be, used for these purposes without such bindings; for they could not be held by stitches, nor otherwise held in place. The plaintiff discovered that they could be sewed between leather bindings, and be held by the stitches. For .this discovery, and the combination of these parts in this way into these new articles of manufacture, she was awarded this patent. Binding the edges of material with other material to hold or strengthen it was not at all new, and a patent for this only would wholly fail. But here was peculiar material, not used before by being sewed, nor practically sewable alone, made sewable and brought into use by this invention. This does not appear to be a merely mechanical double use, but a new use brought about by contrivance, experiment, and adaptation. Such bringing to a new use seems to be patentable. Potts v. Creager, 155 U. S. 597, 15 Sup. Ct. 194. Decree for plaintiff.