|
Description: |
| The Woodworth planer patent, in its various reissues and extensions (Patent 5,315X, patent RE71, patent 80; extended until 1856), is probably the most historically significant US patent for woodworking machinery. Follow the link below the drawing to VintageMachinery.org for more information on Woodworth and this patent. The drawing for this patent was provided in 1841, about the time that the owners were seeking to renew the original patent.William Woodworth was a house carpenter, and this machine was invented to produce flooring stock of consistent dimension. Not only did this save time in preparing the flooring stock, it was a big time-saver for the carpenter because far less "fitting" was required during installation.A notation on the patent drawing says, "On this second day of October 1841, officially appeared before me, Richard Orann of Boston... and made solemn oath that he is interested as an assignee for a Planing Machine for which letters patent of the United States were granted to William Woodworth on the 27th day of December, 1828, and that the accompanying drawings are, as he verily believes, a true delineation of the invention described in the said letters patent." It is widely alleged that the new patent drawing actually incorporated important features not present in the original drawing or specification, and this allowed the Woodworth syndicate to claim ownership of ideas that came later from others.A half share of the patent was assigned to James Strong, a neighbor of Woodworth who provided financial assistance in attaining the patent.From the 1886 book, "Federal Decisions, Vol. XXV. Patents, Copyright and Trade-marks", this patent was involved in the following litigation. "Reissue, 1871. Infringed by use of analogous device and a colorable imitation, Gibson v. Van Dressar, 1 Blatch., 532. Construed to be for a combination and not infringed by a combination of some of its elements with a substantially different element, Brooks v. Fiske, 15 How., 214. Held infringed by substitution of equivalent, Pitts v. Edmonds, 1 Biss., 168. Infringed by a machine varied by an interchange of form and direction between two elements of its combination, while object and effect remain unchanged, Wilson v. Barnum, 2 Fish., 635. Sustained, Motte v. Bennett, 2 Fish., 642. Construed, held valid and infringed, Olcott v. Hawkins, 2 Am. L. J. (9 Penna. L. J. ), 317. Construed, Brooks v. Bicknell, 3 McL., 250; v. Jenkins, 3 McL., 432. Construed to be for an improved machine, Washburn v. Gould, 3 Story, 122. Sustained, Wilson v. Rousseau, 4 H ow ., 646. Patentee held first inventor; sufficiency of description sustained, Woodworth v. Wilson, 4 How., 712. Sustained, Woodworth v. Hall, 1 W. & M., 248. Infringed, Gibson v. Betts, 1 Blatch., 163. Sustained and held infringed in view of prior decisions, Van Hook v. Pendleton, 1 Blatch., 187. Reissue No. 71, 1845-07-08 Its signature by the acting commissioner, Woodworth v. Hall, 1 W. & M., 389. Held to be for same invention as original; sustained and infringed, Smith v. Mercer, 4 West. L. J., 49. Sustained as valid, infringed by change of form, Gibson v. Harris, 1 Blatch., 167. Sustained, Woodworth v. Edwards, 3 W. & M., 120. Infringed, Sloat v. Patton, 1 Fish., 154. See, also, Barnard v. Gibson, 7 How., 560; Bicknell v. Todd, 5 McLean, 236; Bloomer v. McQuewan, 14 How., 539; v. Millinger, 1 Wall., 340; v. Gilpin, 4 Fish., 50; v. Stolley, 5 McLean, 158; Brooks v. Norcross, 2 Fish., 661; v. Bicknell, 4 McLean, 64;4 McLean, 70; v. Stolley, 3 McLean, 523; Brown v. Shannon, 20 How., 55; Dean v. Mason, 20 How., 198; Foss v. Herbert, 1 Biss., 121; Gibson v. Cook, 2 Blatch., 144; v. Barnard, 1 Blatch., 388; v. Gifford, 1 Blatch., 529; Jenkins v. Greenwald, 1 Bond, 126; Livingston v. Woodworth, 15 How., 546; Lippincott v. Kelly, 1 West. L. J., 513; Ritter v. Serrell, 2 Blatch., 379; Simpson v. Wilson, 4 How., 709; Van Hook v. Pendleton, 2 Blatch., 8 5 ; Wilson v. Sherman, 1 Blatch., 536; v. Simpson, 9 How., 109 (repairs); v. Barnum, 8 How., 258; v. Stolly, 4 McLean, 273; v. Turner, Taney's Dec., 278; v. Rousseau, 1 Blatch., 8; v. Stolly, 4 McLean, 275;5 McLean, 1; Woodworth v. Cook, 2 Blatch., 151; v. Sherman, 3 Story, 171; v. Stone, 3 Story, 749; v. Weed, 1 Blatch., 165; v. Curtis, 2 W. & M., 521." |
|
