840
FEDER.4L REPORTER,
vol. 42.
merit. It has no reversing apparatus. There.is thus no mechanism which both stops, starts, and reverses a machine bythe use of two pulleys, one faatand one loose, and a vibrating frame which throws in and out of operation a single set of gears,which, when put in motion by the loose pulley. cause the fast pulley to revolve in the opposite direction to the loose pulley. The Gill mechanism is a simple and compact [uethod of stopping and reversing, has but one train of reversing gear, and gives the and easily-manllged control of the press. The importanteleinents which give the combination its superiority are the franie,and the.frictiongear, which acts upon the friction surface of the fast :pulley , or, as they are called in the second claim, "the vibrating frame, carrying a frictionally acting wheel." The elements of the combination have never been thus brought together before,and the arrangement'produceR an important result, without unnecessary wear and tear, and without loss of power, and by a simple and economical combination of parts, which is easily managed,. This combination in the use of the vibrating frame and its frictional wheel seems to me to have been the result of invention, and to have been beyond the scope of mere mechanical skill. Upon the question ofinfringement. the only difference which is claimed by the defendant's expert to be of inlportance is that, instead of the cogin Gill's machine, the defendant uses a friction wheel, which is driven by the surface of the loose puUey, and transmits motion to the iron cog. These two kinds ofgeariIig were,in the place an!lfor.the purpose for whioh they were there used, known :equivalents or substitutes for each other,! and, unless a most narrow construction should be given to the Gill patent, they create no difference between the two de'\7ices. Let there be a decree against the defendant for the infllingement of the second and third claims, and an accounting.
ASHE ". MUTUAL LASTING
Co. etaZ.
Wtrcwlt OOUTt, D. Maine. April 25,1890.) P4TJ1lNTSPOR
Suit Was brought under Rev. St. U. S. § 4915, to determine whether A. or G. & C. . were the inventors of a machine fol' Which a patent was gt'JInted to G. & C., claima, tack-strip the combination of a sUJ,lport for the tackstriP. consisting of a disk having peripheral teeth to engage between the shanks of the strip, a clamping jaw, and a header." The evidence IJhowed that A. was the first to sUt!'gest the use ofa wheel having teeth to engage between the shanks of the striP, Dut that 1Jtle wheel was to have a'positive movement, which was found to . work imperfectly, while in the perfected machine of G. and C. the strip is not fed by the pO/litive Qf the Wheel, but thE' wheel is moved by the strip. Held, thatA.'s claim to be the inventor of the complete machine is not sustained, and his bill Will' be dismissed. '
CLAIMS.
InEquity. . Predei'ick P.,JiTishll.nd J(J/me$ H. Lange, for complainant. 'f!horna8W. OlfArke, fo),' defendant$.
ASHE
v.
MUTUAL LASTIKG CO.
841
COI,T, J. This suit is brought under section 4915 of the Revised Statutes. The single issue raised is whether the complainant, Robert Ashe, is the first and original inventor of the following subject-matter of invention: "In a tack-strip beading-machine, the combination of a support for tile tack-strip, consisting of a disk having peripheral teeth to engage between the shanks of the strip, a clarnpinp; jaw, and II header." On June 26, 1884, the defendants, EdwardF. Grandy and George W. Copeland, filed a joint application in the patent-office for letters patent for a machine for heading taclr-strips which embodied the invention now in suit; and on July 11, 1884, the complainant, Ashe, likewise made application for a patent covering the same invention. The parties were put into interference, statements' were filed, proofs taken, and the cause came on to be heard before the examiner of interference, who decided that Ashe was the prior inventor. Grandy and Copeland appealed to the board of examiners in chief, who reversed the decision of the lower Ashe thereupon appealed: to the commisgionei ofpaten'ts, who decisionoftheex!1m,iners in chief, and' awarded priority of invention to Grandy,and This suit was afterwards brought. . " ' The sole question at iE<sue is one of fact. It appears that had been interested for some years in. a machi!1efor heading tack-strips, and that he had taken out a number of patents in this' bronch of the art. In December, 1883, Grandy, Ashe, and Joseph E. Crisp were in the employ of Copeland, and, under the direction of Copeland, were engaged in designing· a machine for heading tack-strips. Ashedoes not deny that most of tbe improvements embodied in the Copeland and Grandy machine for which an application for a patent was made on June 4, 1884, and a patent granted July 10, 1888, were suggested by others,' but he insists that he was the first to conceive, in a tack-heading machine, the combination of a support for the tack-strip, consisting of a wheel having peripheral.teeth to engage between the shanks of the strip, a clamping jaw, and a header. In deciding upon dispnted questions of fact, the court must be governed by the weight of evidence, taken in connection with surrounding circumstances and probabilitieil. I have carefully considered the evidence in this case, both that before the patent-office, which by stipulation is made a part of this record, and that introduced in support of the' present bill, and I am satisfied in my own mind that Ashe has failed to sustain his position as thepriodnventor of the invention in controversy as against the defendants. It is true that Copeland and Grandy, during the winter of 1884, had been using clamping jaws tq hold the strip, apd that Ashe, in March, 1884, was the first to suggest the use of a wheel having teeth to engage between the shanks of the strip,and that he dre,wa plan ofa wheel with a jaw and a header, but the plan was wanting as to details; and further, and more import3nt, in the Ashe invention the wheel was to have a positive movement, which was found to work imperfectly. In the perfected machine of Grandy and Copeland, the strip is not fed by any positive movement oftbewheeI,
REPOltTER,
bHt the wheelis moved by the. strip. It is impossible to weigh the eviof Co,pelimd, Grandy, and ,QrisP! as against that introduced ,by Ashe, the while Ashe rp.ay'have first sliggested the use of a wheel, he did not complete and perfect in a practical machine th,e which he now; cJaims. ' , I do not '#JiJ?lt it, nece1>sary the details of the'evid,ence. '1 deem it sufficient to state the conclusion I have reached upon aJull consideration of tP..E/ f/iloCts. , The bill should," therefore be dismissed. . " . i ., " ,; ,',
....
';i
" I: DEDERICK' ". SIEGMlJND. r
, ,:
'.,
!
: (CireUu Court/N. D, New York. JUly I; i
, P,I/om '!'OK
, ,c;!aim of Ifltters pate4t lttMted September 21. J880, to AlbertA. Gehrt 'for l)a1ilig-prsSEl, whibh 'con'siBts of /0 a 'friction Plate,' or eontri,vance for a})'plfbig frletlonto the hYersell, Iio i:'.ei!U'd i ita Qackward ,islnvalid, because not limited to any specifio devices. " .:'1-"" \ ,
,
·
',.
·,');' i
' ';
f
,.",
:.,
,'. "i'";,, "Oh1frch.Jc,Church, for ,cP:rn L. for _ 1' f .
Ii
" '. j I ,I ': I, ;
.
I
f /'
f:
.... '
j
i
;' WALLACE, ElooQtld,Q1Q.im pEthe in to lOOrt· 21, 1:880, ,{Qr"baling-press,") which is the:only onlHuleged to Mlc;)ws:, " in w;'bicb tbe is in.;'fhole,OJ; in partby the rElaCtion Of a or contrival1 ce f,or"Jlplying fqction to t,he t() retar(,1 its wal;"d Plov6mentand prevent shock, sublltantlally as, qaling-presses thetr/l.verser is the reaction or ,of JpepreE?SeQ." therepO\lnd.is sometimes so ,str.opg as.tq Mated, in the specificatraverf!eris reversed a severe to the frame and ,power connection.": pf,t4e ,preflentpatent, so far as the sec()nd is i,s friction.v1ate or for re',WIding, the force of this repound. . movemeQt of the traverser, takes a chamber. _The patentee says in ,t" remEldY thia defect.. I:apply mor,eor less fricQ9n,to the traverser, during ,if;s,ba:ckward thus stop its · .various inin th,hl idea: but to adIhhng or plank,ng '( of tbecharnber) by 'meads tif an adJustmg screw 80 as to !Muse it the top ofthe upper real'extension . ,By opel'sting:lihe. screw, the lining or Jjllalikiog,can ,be made,tQ ,b6l!>l' tigutly, ,as, wiH be readily ,pla1}k,ipg ,may ,lpe IJerQlanently; ,contracted, if desired, alld ,tbe ,same ..J ' " '," ". ':;" ,.' ': " "" " i, \··.
"
·. ',.' -. k ,p
',' ··
I. ,
,'.....
, '·
J : .''' \ .'
<..
',\
STEAM GAUOE' & .I,ANTERN CO,V. WILLIAMS.
These statements comprise the whole description of the friction plate or pressure contrivance. Succinctly stated, what the specification describes is this: The lining of the chamber in which the movemen't of the traverser takes place is adjusted inwardly by a set-screw, so as to impinge upon aud arrest the traverser in its rebound, or the chamber U! constructed in a contracted form so as to arrest and impede the movement of the traverser; or various other instrumentalities, to retard the rebound of the traverser, which are not mentioned, maybe employed.. The third claim of the patent is for a combination ofthe Mction pla.te or pressure contrivance, which consists of the lining or planking adjusted. bva set-screw, with the trnverser. The second claim must therefore be as one for some other pressure contrivance for controlling the rebound of the traverser. In view of its broad terms, it cannot be restricted to one in which the pressure contrivance consists of a chamber) of a permanently contracted form. It is c6n:tended for the complainant that any press of the rebounding traverser type, in which a friction plate: or pressure contrivance is applied to the traverser to retard its backward movement and prevent shock, falls within the terms and scope oftha claim, and is an infringement of it. 'l'helanguage of the claim is such as not only to justify, but to require, this scope to be given to it, and it must be construed as one for the application of friction or pressure to ' the traverser,' during its' backward movement, by any and every device i which is capable of more or less retarding such movement; and this.i is the construction placed upon theclairn, in considering the question' of infringement,by the complainant's expert witness. There is.no itation in the claim to any specific devices,· but the claim is intended 'W . and doesiriollIde any and all of the "various instrumentalities" by : "more or less friction" may be applied to the traverser. In other words, . the claim is one for the application of friction to retard the mOVenll:lnt of the traverser, unlimited to any particular form or character of mechanioalmeansforeffecting such application. Such a claim cannot be upheld. 'roo bill is dismissed. .
STEAM GAUGE
&
LANTERN
Co. v.
WILLiAMS.
(Otrcuit Oourt, N. D. New York. June 26, 1800.)
L
t.
The first claim of letters patent issued August 1, 1882, to J!;dward Wilhelm, for'DD '. improvelnent.in locOmotive head.lights consisting of a reflector, provided with'an . opening behind the burI).er, whereby light is emitted backwardly into the bead-light I ease for Uluminating signal plates, is not infringed by a device wherein the ligbt pasileS into.tbe. head-l1gJ:1t case through an enlargement oftbe burner hole, .' s.'!Qb claimmust,be restriQted to head-lights in which is a hole in tbe ' . dIstinct fromtbe burner. cbimney holes, in order to give it novelty. ', " SAME-PATENTABLE INVENTION.
l"ATEl'ITlI !'OR
HEAD"LIGHTS-INl!'RPiGEMBNT.
directed towards the signal plates,» is void for want of patentable invention.
. ...