Court Opinion

ID: 88108
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-28 16:01:31+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:55.622969
License: Public Domain

75 U.S. 445 (____)
8 Wall. 445
BENNET
v.
FOWLER.
Supreme Court of United States.

*447 Mr. Coburn, for the appellant, contended.
Mr. Goodwin, contra.
Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.
An objection has been taken by counsel for the defendants that the court erred in affirming the validity of the two patents, Nos. 1869, 1870.
It may be, that if the improvements set forth in both specifications had been incorporated into one patent, the patentee *448 taking care to protect himself as to all his improvements by proper and several claims, it would have been sufficient. It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to lay down any general rule by which to determine when a given invention or improvements shall be embraced in one, two, or more patents. Some discretion must necessarily be left on this subject to the head of the Patent Office. It is often a nice and perplexing question. It is true, in the present case both patents relate to the lifting and depositing a load of hay in a mow of a barn, or in a rick or shed. But, in No. 1870, the lifter is somewhat differently constructed, so as to adapt it specially to the stacking of hay, which, doubtless, led the office to divide the improvements, and issue separate patents. The improvements were embraced in one, in the original patent.
The counsel also objects that the machines of the defendants do not infringe the complainant's patents, but, if he had intended to contest this point, he should have introduced proof to this effect. Proof of the infringements given, that the machines made and used by the defendants were substantially like the complainant's, was sufficient, if not rebutted. Models were also produced on the argument before the court, which confirm this proof.
DECREE AFFIRMED.