Clements v. Odorless Excavating Apparatus Co.
109 U.S. 641 (1884)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Clements v. Odorless Excavating Apparatus Co., 109 U.S. 641 (1884)

Clements v. Odorless Excavating Apparatus Company

Argued December 6, 1883

Decided January 7, 1884

109 U.S. 641


Claims 1 and 3 of reissued letters patent No. 8,962, granted to Lewis R. Keizer, February 29th, 1878, for an "improvement in apparatus for cleaning privies" (the original patent, No. 115,585, having been granted, June 8th, 1871, to Henry C. Bull and Joseph M. Lowenstein, on the invention of said Bull, and the application for the reissue having been filed January 11, 1878), namely,

"1. A privy vault cleaning apparatus consisting of an air pump, a deodorizer, and suitable tubular connections, in combination with an independently movable receiving cask, having an induction passage or opening, and also an air opening for connection with the air pump, and provided with screw necks at each opening for receiving sealing caps or covers, substantially as described, whereby the movable cask may be located in any desired position with relation to the vault and privy, and the pump and deodorizer located in any desired position with relation to the vault, privy and cask, and also whereby the casks, when filled, may be handled as is usual with filled casks, as set forth;"

"3. The combination, with a portable night soil cask, of a float valve located at the air passage, substantially as described, whereby the fluid matter is prevented from entering the air passage and clogging the suction air pipe and pump, as set forth."

are invalid, because they are for inventions not indicated in the original patent as inventions, being for sub-combinations in combinations claimed in the original, and were made for the purpose of covering features described in patents issued to others during the interval between the granting of the original and the application for the reissue.

Those features are contained in the defendant's apparatus, and that apparatus does not infringe any claim in the original patent.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.