Case Name: Stimpson v. Woodman
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1869-12
Citations: 10 Wall. 117
Docket Number: 
Parties: Stimpson v. Woodman.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 77
Pages: 117–126

Head Matter:
Stimpson v. Woodman.
Where a roller in a particular combination had been used before without designs on it,- and a roller with designs on it had also been used in another combination-, it was not a patentable invention to place designs on. the roller in the first named combination. Such a change, with the existing knowledge in the art, involved simply mechanical skill, which is not patentable.
Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the- • District of Massachusetts.- ■
Woodman sued Stimpson, in the court below, to recover damages for an infringement of a patent granted on the 29th March, 1864, for “ a new and useful machine for ornamenting leather,” as stated in the letters patent. In the specification the plaintiff stated that he has “invented a new and useful improvement in boarding or pebbling leather,” and describes how this process was formerly carried on. He says:
“ What is known as a boarded or pebbled grain or finish, has hitherto been given to leather by what is called the boarding operation, which consists in doubling the skin over on to itself on a table, so that the flesh side shall be out, and then forcing or rucking one part over-the other, in different directions, by means of a flat ‘ cork-board,’ which breaks or wrinkles the grain, and gives it a rough, checkered, or pebbled appearance. This operation is performed by hand, and is very slow and laborious, and produces only one particular kind of finish.”
He then observes:
“ The nature of my invention, therefore, consists in producing this ‘ pebbled ’ or boarded ’ grain or finish on leather,- by subjecting it to the pressure of a short revolving cylinder or roller of steel, or other suitable metal, having the required design or figure engraved or sunk on its periphery. . . . My improvement further consists in combining with said roller a certain’ new and useful combination of mechanical devices for carrying my invention into practical .operation, so as to accomplish the object desired with great rapidity and cheapness.”
He further observes:
“ It is obvious that my ‘ pebbled ’ roller may be combined with various mechanical devices, whereby it can be rolled with sufficient pressure over a skin of leather. I will, however, now describe a combination of devices which I find to answer every purpose required.”
The plaintiff then describes with great minuteness the machine, and every part of it, and closes with his claims:
“ First. Boarding or pebbling skins or leather by means of a single short cylinder rolling over a table with the requisite pressure, substantially as described.
“Second. I also claim raising and lowering the table ‘A’ by means of the toggles ‘ Q,’ arm ‘ S,’ spring ‘U,’ arm ‘T,’ and cam ‘ P,’ or 'their equivalents, substantially as set forth, and for the purposes described.”
The second claim was not in the case, as the arrangement or contrivance was not found in the defendant’s machine. The 'first was the only one in question. That, as already stated, was “boarding or pebbling” skins or leather by means of a single short cylinder rolling 'over a table with the requisite pressure, substantially as described, which means, as this court stated that they understood the claim, finishing or figuring the leather, by means of a revolving roller, the design or figure engraved or sunk on its periphery, and worked over the grain of the leather by the use of the machinery described, or by machinery substantially like it.
It was admitted, in the bill of exceptions, that evidence was given on the trial, by the defendant, tending to show that prior to the plaintiff’s invention, boarded or pebbled grain or finish, described in his patent as produced by him, had been produced on leather by subjecting it to the pressure of a.short revolving cylinder of steel or other metal, having the required design or figure engraved or sunk on its pe-v riphery, and rolling over a table upon which the leather was placed; and that the said revolving figured cylinders, which are known in the case as “pebbling rollers,” were operated with the requisite pressure by means of hand devices.
It was also admitted that the defendant gave evidence tending to show that prior to the plaintiff’s improvement thére was known and used a machine (made by one Green) which, in its substantial combination or arrangement of its parts, co-operating together for the purpose of impressing the surface of leather, differed in no material respect from the machine described in the letters patent, whereof a model was produced, except in respect to the mechanism for raising and lowering the table (not' in the defendant’s machine), and except that instead of operating a short revolving roller like the plaintiff’s, having a figured surface for the purpose of producing the pebbled grain on leather, it operated a short revolving metallic roller, having a smooth surface, for the purpose of giving to the leather a closer natural grain; that this was the only diversity between the two machines; and that.having the smooth roller instead of the roller with the ornamented surface, made no difference in the substantial combination .or arrangement of machinery co-operating together in said machines for the purpose of. doing the work.
On this case, the defendant asked the court to instruct the jury as a second instruction, thus :
“If they find that the form of the surface of the rollers in the plaintiff’s machine is not material to the mechanical action of the'roller in combination with the other devices, and their arrangements, by which the roller is moved, the leather supported, and the pressure made; and if they find that before the plaintiff’s invention a machine was known and used not differing substantially from the plaintiff’s machine in any other re-' spect, but having a roller for giving a finish to leather, the surface of which roller was different from that specifically shown and described in plaintiff’s patent; and if they find that, before the plaintiff’s invention, rollers having such a surface as the plaintiff’s, substantially, were known and used in other machines for the same purpose, the plaintiff’s patent for the first claim is void.”
This was refused, aud the jury found in favor of the plaintiff. The other side now brought the case here.
Messrs. B. R. Curtis and G. L. Roberts, for the plaintiff in error; Mr. Wakefield, contra.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice NELSON
delivered the opinion'of the court.
Taking the evidence as stated in the bill of exceptions, it will be seen that the only difference between the. prior machine and the plaintiff's, • in its combination and arrangement, and in its workiug and effect upon the leather, is that the metallic roller in the former had a smooth, and in the latter a figured surface. In- all other respects the two machines were the same; But, as also appears in the bill of exceptions,'this figured revolving'roller was old, and the use of it in pebbling leather was also old and well known. Neither the plaintiff'nor the defendant could claim any right to it as inventors. The same pebbled grain or finish, as described in plaintiff's patent, had already been produced on leather by subjecting it to pressure while rolling over the table on which the leather was placed. But this pressure was produced by means of hand devices. The field of invention was open to any person to construct new devices or machinery by moans of which to operate this old instrument in "pebbling leather," — in the language of the patentee in this case, "so as to accomplish the object desired with greater rapidity and cheapness." And this the plaintiff would have accomplished by his machine if he had not been anticipated. But the case admits that evidence was given tending to show that the device or machine he has patented for the purpose, so far as used by the defendant, was the same as the Green machine, which was prior in date.
The prayer for the second instruction to'the jury prayed for by the defendant is somewhat involved and obscured by too much verbiage; but when analyzed and understood, it was clearly warranted and supported by the evidence, and should have been given. In substance it is, if the jury should find that the figured roller in the plaintiff's machine was not material to the mechanical action of the roller in the combination and arrangement of 'the machinery by which it was moved, the leather supported, and the pressure made; and if they find that before the plaintiff's a machine was known and in use similar to his, except that the surface of the roller was smooth; and if they find that before the plaintiff's invention figured rollers were known and used in other machines for the same purpose, then the plaintiff's first claim was void. In other words, and,- in short, if the plaintiff's machine had .been anticipated in every part of its construction except the figures or designs on the roller, which roller was old, he was not entitled to-recover. This instruction was refused, which, for the reasons already stated, we think was error.
There is, also, another ground upon which we think this instruction should have been given. Assuming the plaintiff to have been anticipated in the construction of his machine in every part of it, except- that the prior machine used a smooth revolving roller, and the plaintiff a figured one, but which figured roller had been used for pebbling leather by pressure, and was well known, all of which the jury would have been warranted in finding, the engraving or stamping of the figure upon the surface of the smooth roller, or the substitution of the old figured'roller for the purpose, required no invention; the change with the existing knowledge in the art involved simply mechanical skill, which is not patentable.
Judgment reversed. Venire de novo.