NEW YORK SCAFFOLDING CO. V. CHAIN BELT CO., 254 U. S. 32 (1920)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 254 U. S. 32
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/254/32/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/254/32/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
New York Scaffolding Co. v. Chain Belt Co., 254 U.S. 32 (1920)
New York Scaffolding Company v. Chain Belt Company
No. 23
Argued October 7, 8, 1920
Decided November 8, 1920
254 U.S. 32
Syllabus
Patent No. 959,008, Claims 1 and 3, to Elias H. Henderson, for improvements in scaffold supporting means, exhibits no invention over the prior art. Pp. 254 U. S. 34 et seq. New York Scaffolding Co. v. Liebel-Binney Construction Co., ante, 254 U. S. 24.
The fact that a change in a composite instrumentality was readily made may be evidence that the change was the result of mere mechanical facility, as opposed to invention. P. 254 U. S. 36.
Advantages found in a patented device may count in favor of the patentee though he did not discern them when he secured his patent; but if the device is only an alteration of an earlier patented device,
involving no invention, they redound to the benefit of the earlier patentee though he also was unaware of them and did not attribute them to his invention. P. 254 U. S. 37.
245 F.7d 7 reversed.
The case is stated in the opinion.