US Patent: RE3,445
|
| Machine for cutting miter and other joints
|
|
Patentee:
|
|
| George W. La Baw (exact or similar names) - Jersey City, NJ |
|
|
Patent Dates:
|
| Granted: |
May 18, 1869 |
| Reissue Information: |
| Reissue of 12,956 (May 29, 1855) |
USPTO (New site tip)
Google Patents
Report data errors or omissions to steward
Jeff Joslin
Court decision in La Baw v. Hawkins
|
|
Description: |
| Machine cuts dovetailed miter joints.According to the 1873 "Subject-matter index of patents for inventions issued by the United States Patent Office", this patent was granted an extension.In 1874 La Baw et. al. sued William Hawkins et. al. (the licensees of Stephen Hall's miter machine of patent 21,194), for infringement of this patent. The defendants argued that this reissue amounted to a new invention, containing ideas not contained within original patent. In addition they argued that the ideas of this patent were anticipated by 1853 patent 9,778 to Charles B. Fitch, and also anticipated by an unpatented 1850 invention of E. M. Hendrickson of Brooklyn, and an 1852 invention by Charles W. Jenks of Providence, RI, who manufactured it. Finally, they pointed to the 1847 Fair of the American Institute where John A. Montgomery, of Poughkeepsie, exhibited a machine that anticipated La Baw's patent. The court noted that Fitch's patent was for a different purpose, namely tenons, and does not entertain the idea of cutting miters. The court ruled that Fitch did not anticipate La Baw's patent. As for the Hendrickson machine, it was for cutting tin. There were some inconsistencies in Hendrickson's statements regarding the timing of his invention and as so whether its construction anticipated La Baw's ideas. Hendrickson's original machine did not survive so it could not be examined, and the court ultimately rejected the defence argument. The Jenks machine, for cutting paper, was similarly unconvincing as having anticipated La Baw's patent, as was Montgomery's mortising machine. Finally, the defense argued that Hall's patent did not infringe on this La Baw patent. The Hall patent disclaims the knives at right angles and attached to a sliding rest as described by La Baw's patent; Hall claimed the use of flanges and a groove in the frame to guide the edges of the knives and prevent them from springing. The court held that Hall's patent, in improving on La Baw, still infringed on La Baw's second claim. The various licensees of the Hall patent had to pay damages to La Baw, a sum totalling $1,646.41 for Hawkins & Dodge alone. |
|
