Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co., 185 U.S. 403 (1902) (No. 17)

Case name: Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co. Opinion filed: 1902-05-05 Docket No.: 17 Citations: • 185 U.S. 403 • 22 S. Ct. 698 • 46 L. Ed. 968 • 1902 U.S. LEXIS 2202 Case holding summaries: • “The claim of a patent must always be explained by and read in connection with the specification . . . .” • “The specification of the patent is not addressed to lawyers, or even to the public generally, but to the manufacturers of steel . . . .” • also stating that “any description which is sufficient to apprise [steel manufacturers] in the language of the art of the definite feature of the invention, and to serve as a warning to others of what the patent claims as a monopoly, is sufficiently definite to sustain the patent” • evidence of testing without opportunity afforded the opponent[] to inspect the plant or witness its operation likely inadmissible • also stating that “any description which is sufficient to apprise [steel manufacturers] in the language of the art of the definite feature of the invention, and to serve as a warning to others of what the patent claims as a monopoly, is sufficiently definite to sustain the patent” • also stating that “any description which is sufficient to apprise [steel manufacturers] in the language of the art of the definite feature of the invention, and to serve as a warning to others of what the patent claims as a monopoly, is sufficiently definite to sustain the patent” • stating that “any description which is sufficient to . . . serve as a warning to others of what the patent claims as a monopoly, is sufficiently definite to sustain the patent”