Welcome! 

Register :: Login
Manufacturers Index - William Woodworth
Patents
This page contains information on patents issued to this manufacturer.

Submitting Patent Information

If you find a patent number or patent date by this manufacturer that is not on this list, please contact the Site Historian.


Key to Links for Patent Information

USPTO = U.S. Patent Office . Images of the actual patent can be viewed on the U.S. Patent Office web site but a special TIFF viewer must be installed with your browser in order properly work. More information on how to configure your computer to view these patents can be found at TIFF image Viewers for Patent Images.
DATAMP = Directory of American Tool And Machinery Patents . A sister site to VintageMachinery.org with information on patents related to machinery and tools. A much easier user interface than the USPTO's for finding information on machinery patents.

Patent Number Date Title Name City Description
X5,315 Dec. 27, 1828 Machine for planing and tonguing boards William Woodworth Hudson, NY The Woodworth planer patent, in its various reissues and extensions (Patent 5,315X, patent 71, patent 80; extended until 1856), is probably the most historically significant US patent for woodworking machinery. Follow the link below the drawing to VintageMachinery.org for more information on Woodworth and this patent. The drawing for this patent was provided in 1841, about the time that the owners were seeking to renew the original patent.
William Woodworth was a house carpenter, and this machine was invented to produce flooring stock of consistent dimension. Not only did this save time in preparing the flooring stock, it was a big time-saver for the carpenter because far less "fitting" was required during installation.
A notation on the patent drawing says, "On this second day of October 1841, officially appeared before me, Richard Orann of Boston... and made solemn oath that he is interested as an assignee for a Planing Machine for which letters patent of the United States were granted to William Woodworth on the 27th day of December, 1828, and that the accompanying drawings are, as he verily believes, a true delineation of the invention described in the said letters patent." It is widely alleged that the new patent drawing actually incorporated important features not present in the original drawing or specification, and this allowed the Woodworth syndicate to claim ownership of ideas that came later from others.
A half share of the patent was assigned to James Strong, a neighbor of Woodworth who provided financial assistance in attaining the patent.
From the 1886 book, "Federal Decisions, Vol. XXV. Patents, Copyright and Trade-marks", this patent was involved in the following litigation. "Reissue, 1871. Infringed by use of analogous device and a colorable imitation, Gibson v. Van Dressar, 1 Blatch., 532. Construed to be for a combination and not infringed by a combination of some of its elements with a substantially different element, Brooks v. Fiske, 15 How., 214. Held infringed by substitution of equivalent, Pitts v. Edmonds, 1 Biss., 168. Infringed by a machine varied by an interchange of form and direction between two elements of its combination, while object and effect remain unchanged, Wilson v. Barnum, 2 Fish., 635. Sustained, Motte v. Bennett, 2 Fish., 642. Construed, held valid and infringed, Olcott v. Hawkins, 2 Am. L. J. (9 Penna. L. J. ), 317. Construed, Brooks v. Bicknell, 3 McL., 250; v. Jenkins, 3 McL., 432. Construed to be for an improved machine, Washburn v. Gould, 3 Story, 122. Sustained, Wilson v. Rousseau, 4 H ow ., 646. Patentee held first inventor; sufficiency of description sustained, Woodworth v. Wilson, 4 How., 712. Sustained, Woodworth v. Hall, 1 W. & M., 248. Infringed, Gibson v. Betts, 1 Blatch., 163. Sustained and held infringed in view of prior decisions, Van Hook v. Pendleton, 1 Blatch., 187. Reissue No. 71, 1845-07-08 Its signature by the acting commissioner, Woodworth v. Hall, 1 W. & M., 389. Held to be for same invention as original; sustained and infringed, Smith v. Mercer, 4 West. L. J., 49. Sustained as valid, infringed by change of form, Gibson v. Harris, 1 Blatch., 167. Sustained, Woodworth v. Edwards, 3 W. & M., 120. Infringed, Sloat v. Patton, 1 Fish., 154. See, also, Barnard v. Gibson, 7 How., 560; Bicknell v. Todd, 5 McLean, 236; Bloomer v. McQuewan, 14 How., 539; v. Millinger, 1 Wall., 340; v. Gilpin, 4 Fish., 50; v. Stolley, 5 McLean, 158; Brooks v. Norcross, 2 Fish., 661; v. Bicknell, 4 McLean, 64;4 McLean, 70; v. Stolley, 3 McLean, 523; Brown v. Shannon, 20 How., 55; Dean v. Mason, 20 How., 198; Foss v. Herbert, 1 Biss., 121; Gibson v. Cook, 2 Blatch., 144; v. Barnard, 1 Blatch., 388; v. Gifford, 1 Blatch., 529; Jenkins v. Greenwald, 1 Bond, 126; Livingston v. Woodworth, 15 How., 546; Lippincott v. Kelly, 1 West. L. J., 513; Ritter v. Serrell, 2 Blatch., 379; Simpson v. Wilson, 4 How., 709; Van Hook v. Pendleton, 2 Blatch., 8 5 ; Wilson v. Sherman, 1 Blatch., 536; v. Simpson, 9 How., 109 (repairs); v. Barnum, 8 How., 258; v. Stolly, 4 McLean, 273; v. Turner, Taney's Dec., 278; v. Rousseau, 1 Blatch., 8; v. Stolly, 4 McLean, 275;5 McLean, 1; Woodworth v. Cook, 2 Blatch., 151; v. Sherman, 3 Story, 171; v. Stone, 3 Story, 749; v. Weed, 1 Blatch., 165; v. Curtis, 2 W. & M., 521."
80 Nov. 15, 1836 Machine for reducing and planing boards for flooring, ceilings, etc. William Woodworth New York, NY The drawing for this patent is missing.
This patent, issued to the holder of the infamous Woodworth planer patent 5,315, gives a series of improvements to that machine. Circular saws form a "reducing cylinder" in combination with the planing machine. The lumber is fed flat, rather than standing on edge. There are powered infeed and outfeed rolls both above and below the lumber. There are, optionally, fixed knives for final smoothing. In the final paragraph of the patent, Woodworth acknowledges prior art by "Shakers".
RE71 Jul. 08, 1845 Improvement in machines for planing, tonguing, grooving, and dressing boards, etc. William Woodworth New York, NY This reissue includes a hold-down roll (a predecessor to the pressure bar) that was not in the original patent. It is widely believed that the Woodworth patent syndicate bribed officials, including members of Congress, to push this illegal expansion of the patent through both the Patent Office and the courts. Woodworth was deceased when this reissued was granted; his son, William W. Woodworth of Hyde Park, NY, was the administrator. See the "Vintage Machinery" web page on William Woodworth for more information.