Court Opinion

ID: 9417629
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 20:28:33.22496+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:54:52.182350
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Brown
(with whom was Mr. Justice Shiras) dissenting.
In the construction of his device Hall took the principle of the common umbrella and of an adjustable reel for unwinding yarn, and by adding to it ribs and elastic bands, adapted it to an entirely different purpose, namely, to the construction of an adjustable dress form, which has largely supplanted those previous^ in use. While the changes made were not radical' in their character, I think they were such as to involve invention within the rule stated in Loom Co. v. Higgins, 105 U. S. 580, 591 ; The Barbed Wire Patent, 143 U. S. 275 ; Gandy v. Main Belting Co., 143 U. S. 587; and Topliff v. Tofliff, 145 U. S. 156 ; and that the change made by the defendant in using a collar fixed to the standard for the upper sliding block, and a-nut and threaded standard for the lower sliding block and rest of the Hall patent, was in fact tfie substitution of well-known equivalents, and does not exonerate them from the' charge of infringement.
The Ciiiee Justice did not sit in this case and took no part in its decision.