Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Crawford v. Heysinger

Crawford v. Heysinger, 123 U.S. 589 (1887)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1887-12-12
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • finding prosecution history estoppel to arise from amendments made in response to operability rejections

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Crawford v. Heysinger. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
45 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Patent Law — Claim Construction Where a patent applicant, in response to Patent Office objections during reissue prosecution, voluntarily narrowed his claims to require a stationary staple-support or anvil and a reciprocating slotted or recessed hammer or driver, the applicant is bound by those limitations in subsequent infringement suits and the claims must be construed to cover only the precise combinations enumerated in them and described in the specification and drawings. 123 U.S. at 606-607
  2. Patent Law — Infringement A patent claim requiring a stationary anvil and a reciprocating driver is not infringed by a device in which the anvil is movable and the recessed clinching base is stationary and receives the impact of a detached driving tool; such a stationary base is not the mechanical equivalent of the claimed reciprocating driver. 123 U.S. at 605-606
  3. Patent Law — Claim Construction Claim terms are construed in light of the language of the claims, the state of the art, and any limitations imposed by the Patent Office in allowing the claims. 123 U.S. at 589 (syllabus)