FEDERAl}
44.
+61untary' asfirst been' treated· by 'every one hitherto, from the signment downward, as one estate; I find no lluthorityin the law for treating them otherwise, however different may the businesses conducted at the twoestablishtiiElDts. To do' so would be to treat the two branches as. independent firms, or as corpor£tions'pro tanto; which they are not. A judgment reco,vered upon the debt'of onebtanch house would have been legally indi:stihguishable from a judgmeut. upon a debt· of the other branch. Both vtouldhave been against the same defendnnts,jointlyand severallYiarld' any assets of either'branch within the jurisdiction would have been lill.blEj on either to seizure, upon execution, or to be reached by nbill in equity if. to levy. No branch of the law has ever recognized, so far as I can discover, any right· to such a mars,haling of the assets of the different branches ofa single 'copartnership as is here contended for, though 'the different branches have a different business name, where the partners carrying on the whole business are the same. Such is the opinion expressed by WALLACE, J;, in Re Nims, 18N. B: R. 91, 92. The judgment of the circuit court in that case (16 Blatchf. 439) proceeded upon facts and considerations quite dissimilar and inapplicable to the present case. The application is denied.
FOSTJm
v.
CROSSIN
et al. Ootober 18, 1890.)
(CircwEt Court, D. Rhode
P,".'tBNTS POR INVBNTJONs-J"EWELRY PINS-NOVELTY.
A design for jewelry pins, consisting of a pieoe of metal in the shape of a spoon or fqrk two inches long, precisely /!Iimilar in appearanoe to common spoons or forks six inches long, lacks the novelty necessary to support a patent.
In Equity. Walter B. Vincent, for complainant. John N. Brennan and Warren R. Perce, for defendants. Before GRAY, Justice, and CoLT, J. GRAY, Justice. This is a l;>il1 in equity to the infringement of two patents, applied for and in 1884, for designs of jewelry pins, the one re\presenting a spoon and, the other a table fork. The specification of the first patent (omitting the introductory paragraph and the description of the drawings) is as follows:
"The leading features of my design consist in a plate, the outside and front surface of which is made to represllhta spoon. witb the cOntinuous outline edge of tbe turned backward :for a nearly uniform distance from its front. and also baving an engraved. chRsed. or embossedbandle." "The form ,and style of tbe ornamentation mar be varied without affecting the I{eneral appearance of tb,e wbole design." as my invention the design for a jewelry pin. herein sbown. and the same consisting of a plate baving tbe shape of a spoon, with the outllDe edge of the plate turned backward
FOSTER'll. CROSSIN.
at a n(lar)y uniform .distance from its front, and the surface of the handle of the spoollllhowing an embossed or engraved ornamentation."
The corresponding parts of the specification of the second patent differ only in substituting "table fork" for "spoon" in the body of the specification and in the claim. Upon the filing of the bill the district judge granted a temporary injunction, and delivered an opinion reported in 23 Fed. Rep. 400. The case has now been heard upon pleadings and proofs. There is some conflict in the testimony. Taking the whole evidence as favorably as possible for the plaintiff, the material facts appear to be as follows: Before either of these patents was applied for, common spoons and forks, as well as jewelry pins in other shapes than spoons or forks, had been made, with. the edges turned over as described in these patents. But jewelry pins in the shape of spoons and forks had never been made with the edges so turned, and the plaintiff's pins, by ,reason of their peculiar form and appearance, resulting from the turning of the edges, were easily distinguishable from such pins of other manufacturers, and had a readier and larger sale. Under section 4886 of the Revised Statutes, authorizing);l patent be. granted to "any person who has invented or discotrered any new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, not known or used by others in this country, and not patented or described in any printed publication in this or any foreign country, before his invention or discovery thereof," it is well settled that the application of an old process or machine to a new or analogous subject, (although of very different size or material,) with no change in the manner of application, and accomplishing no result substantially different in its nature, will not sustain a patent. Pell/nsylvania R. Co.v. Locomotive Safety Truck 00., 110 U. S. 490,4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 220, and cases cited; Peters v. Manufacturing 00., 129 U. S. 530, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 389; Peters v. Hanson, 129 U. S. 541, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 393. Under section 4929 a patent for a design can only be granted to "any person who by his own industry, genius, efforts, and expense has invented and produced any new and original design for a manufacture" or other thing mentioned in this section, "or any new, useful, and original shape or configuration of any article of manufacture, the same not having been known or used by others before his invention or production thereof, or patented or described in any printed publication." A patent under thill section, indeed, is for. the design which is the product of the invention, and not for the process or the mea,ns by which it is produced, andhns less regard to the utility of the product than to the lloveltyand originality of its appearance. But in order to support a patent for a design, as for any other subject, under tpe acts passed by congress in the exerciiJe of its constitutional power to secure to inventors the exclusive right to' their discoveries, there must be soml:! invention, and not a mere application to a new material of something already known. design must be newan<J original, and ·not copy or an is required by the clear words of the secQ.Qn, and has been const;antly, recognized in the judicial decisions Clarkv. J)<?U8,Mld,.10 Wall.. 133, 139,j Gorham Co.· v. White, 14
!¥..
64
DDERAL REPORTER,
vol. 44.
Wall. 511,524:,525; Wooster v. Crane, 5 BIatchf. 282, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 583; NiedringhaitB's Appeal, 8 O. G. 279; NOTthrup v. Adams, 2 Ban. & A. 567; Theberath v. Harne1J8 00., 15 Fed. Rep. 246. The decirsions under the corresponding provision of the English patent act are to the same effect. Mulkmey v. Stevens, 10 Law T. (N. S.) 190; Lazartts v. Charles, L. R. 16 Eq. 117; Windover v. Smith, 32 Beav. 200; Adams v. Clementson, 12 Ch. Div.714; Dicks v. Brooks, 15 Ch. Div. 22,34; Le Mayv. Welch, 28 Ch. Div. 24; in re Bach's Design, 42 Ch. Div. 661. In the light of the words of the statute, and of the uniform course of decision upon the subject, we can have no doubt that a design for apiece of metal in the shape of a spoon or fork two inches long, precisely similar in appearance, both generally and in form of edge, to common spoons or forks six inches long, lacks the novelty necessary to support a patent. Bill dismissed, with costs.
CAMPBELL PRINTING-PRESS & MANUF'G BRAKE Co.
Co.
V. EAMES VACUUM
Oourt, S. D. New Yor7c. November 18,1890.) 1. PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-VAl,VES FOR PNEUllfATIO PrPE8-NoVELTY-INVENTION.
'Claim 1 of letters patent No. 401,680, granted to Edward S. Boynton, April 16, 1889, for an improvement in valves for pneumatic pipes, was "in combination with an external pivoted valve, a compressive helical spring inclosed within a tubular guide formed "Upon or attached to the valve." In a device for coupling the pipes between railroad cars previously patented, the valve was made to hold the coupling, or to fly shut by means of a torsional helical spring. Held, that the combination of claim 1 was but the SUbstitution of a compressive helical spring for the torsional spring of the' older structure, with the limitation that the tnbular guide must be attached to the valve,and that such claim was void for want of novelty. The second claim of such letters patent was limited by stating that the tubular guide must be attached to the valve between one end of the guide and a stop at the pivoted point of the valve, and thus insured a neat, compact, and cheap structure, besides safety and durability. Held, that the device involved invention, and was ,
2.
SAME.
In Equity. , Philip R. Voorhees, for complainant. J. E. Maynadier, for defendant.
CoXE, J. The complainant sues to restrain the infringement of letters patent No. 401,680, dated April 16, 1889, granted to Edward S. Boynton, assignor to the complainant, for an improvement in valves for pneumatic pipes or tubes. On the 17th of July, 1877, a patent, No. 193,078, was granted to Frederick W. Eames for a new device for coupling the pipes between railroad cars, especially designed for use in connection with the vacuuin power-brake. In the Eames structure the valve is made to hold the coupling, or to fly shut upon the valve seat by means of a torsional helical spring. In the patent in hand the same result is produced by a compressive helical spring. The substitution