Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/106/39/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/106/39/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Gosling v. Roberts, 106 U.S. 39 (1882)
Gosling v. Roberts
Decided October 23, 1882
106 U.S. 39
Syllabus
1. The first claim of reissued letters patent No. b644, granted to John W. Gosling Nov. 4, 1873, for an "improvement in step covers and wheel fenders for carriages," if construed to be broad enough to cover the structure made in accordance with the specification annexed to letters patent No. 90,584, granted to John Roberts May 25, 1869, is void because the invention is not new, nor is it embraced in the original letters.
2. The invention covered by the claim of Gosling's original letters (post, p. 106 U. S. 42) was new, and they are adequate to secure it.
This was a bill filed by Gosling wherein he alleges that, being the first inventor of a new and useful improvement in step covers and wheel fenders for carriages, he obtained
letters patent therefor, No. 62,406, bearing date Feb. 26, 1867; that on his surrendering them, reissued letters No. 5,644, dated Nov. 4, 1873, were granted to him for that invention, and that Roberts, the defendant, was infringing them. He prays for an injunction, an account, and general relief.
Roberts denies as well the alleged infringement, the novelty, and utility of the improvement described in the reissued letters, as Gosling's claim to be the first inventor thereof. He also sets up as a defense that they are void because they include matters not covered by the original letters.
The court, upon a final hearing, dismissed the bill, and Gosling appealed.
The specifications and claims which are set forth in the opinion of the court refer to certain drawings. Those annexed to Gosling's original letters are as follows:
image:a
The drawings annexed to his reissued letters are as follows:
image:b
