TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Regina Co. v. New Century Music Box Co.

Regina Co. v. New Century Music Box Co., 148 F. 1021 (2d Cir. 1906)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
November 7, 1906
Docket
No. 31
Judges
Coxe, Lacombe, Townsend
Citations
148 F. 102179 C.C.A. 5351906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4404
Summary
Appeal from the Circuit. Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. On appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York adjudging invalid the complainant’s patent, No. 500,371, for an improvement in music boxes,

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PER CURIAM.

The Circuit Court found that the patent was invalid for lack of invention, and, after an examination of the record, we see no reason to disturb this finding. The important element of the combination of the claims, and the one which produced a real advance in the art, was the transfer of power from the e’enter to the periphery of the moving disk by means of the sprocket-wheel engaging in the apertures near the outer edge of the disk; but this was not new with the patentees. The other elements of the combination are old, and the combination itself, speaking broadly, is old, being differentiated from the prior art by the introduction of the hinged rod, with anti-friction wheels thereon, as a substitute for the devices of the prior aft used to produce similar results. This may be an improvement over the means previously adopted for giving uniform pressure to the disk ; but in view of the prior art, as disclosed by the record, and in view of the very obvious use of anti-friction wheels, in such environments, we are of tlie opinion that the adoption of the hinged rod of the patent did not involve invention. It was the work oí a mechanic familiar with the requirements of the art, and not of an inventor. The decree is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list