0

ent October 4, 1870. Cogswell and Judson filed their application November 18, 1870.

This is one of those cases where there is no claim of priority between two independent inventors, but the question is which of the two parties was the inventor; for it is conceded on both sides that either one or the other has made false claims. The testimony occupies six hundred pages and the written arguments about one hundred; but, as usual in such cases, very little of the six hundred pages has any relevancy to the case. The facts are few and simple, and the only difficulty in the case is found in deducing the truth from the very positive and very contradictory statements of parties whose characters for truth and veracity stand unimpeached.

A knowledge of the relation the parties sustained to each other does something toward explaining the testimoney. Judson is an extensive manufacturer of steam-governors at Rochester, New York. Cogswell was his foreman or superintendent. Burke was the owner of a foundery in the same place, and for a long time made the castings for Judson's governors. These relations threw the parties often together, especially Burke and Cogswell, and led them often to discuss the merits and demerits of the castings, and to study how to overcome defects. That these defects were of a serious nature was evidenced by Cogswell returning to Burke at two different times over three thousand pounds of the small-sized throttle-chambers, nearly all of which were defective in the very point this invention was intended to remedy. These defects were damaging to Burke, as he lost the castings, and still more so to Judson, as he was at the expense of chucking and turning the face of the valve-seat before developing the defect, and also suffered a loss in trade, not being able to fill orders for his governor. Hence both parties were interested, and, considering their circumstances, probably equally interested, in devising some means of overcoming the difficulty they encountered.

In October, 1868, one Landis, who had purchased a governor of Judson, complained of the valve seat, and returned the valve-chamber with a request to have a brass valve-seat put in it. This, of course, could not be done; but Cogswell and Judson consulted together and concluded to try the experiment of casting the chamber around brass valveseats. Cogswell had the patterns prepared and sent to Burke. The first attempt was a failure; but at the next they succeeded in casting an iron chamber inclosing a brass seat successfully. It was sent to Landis, and the testimony shows that it has been in successful use ever since. There can be no reasonable doubt entertained as to Cogswell and Judson being the inventors of the valve-seat sent to Landis. The only question is, was it an unsuccessful experiment, and so regarded by the parties? There were, unquestionably, difficulties connected with the invention that had not been overcome at the time of making the Landis valve-seat. As brass melts at much lower temperature than iron, it

was found that the brass rings would be melted by pouring molten iron around them. Another difficulty consisted in adjusting these rings to the core in the molding of the valve-casings. It was at first thought that the ring must be cast in halves, and then be fastened around the core by means of wire, which was expensive and cumbersome. Nothing more was done except to consult and talk about the matter until in January or February of 1870-the testimony, I think, pretty clearly fixing the time from the 1st to the 10th of February, though Cogswell swears that it was in January.

Burke swears that the idea came to him, while thinking the matter over on the 6th of February, 1870, of taking entire rings of hard iron and casting the casings around them. He says he was elated with the thought, and on the same day described the conception to his brother. In this statement he is sustained by his brother's testimony. On the 7th, 8th, and 9th of the same month Burke experimented, and on the latter day fully succeeded in his effort. I think the evidence abundantly shows that the invention in its present form was not reduced to practice until February 9, 1870, and, if Burke's testimony can be fully accepted, he must be regarded as the real inventor. But Burke must be mistaken. He does not claim to have obtained the idea before February 6, 1870, and he so fixes the date by his own and his brother's tes timony as to leave no chance to fix it at an earlier day.

It is admitted by both parties that the continuous iron rings used by Burke in these experiments, and that have ever since been used in the manufacture of this invention, were constructed from a drawing made by Cogswell, and the testimony leaves no room for a reasonable doubt but that that drawing was made previous to February 6, 1870. Cogswell swears that it was made as early as January 24, 1870, and the drawing bears that date in pencil; but Cogswell's memory of dates is proven unreliable, for he swears the experimenting at Burke's foundery was on the 26th, 27th, and 28th of January, 1870, while the evidence makes it certain that in this matter he is wrong and Burke right. If we were left alone to the testimony of Cogswell in this matter there would be more doubt upon the subject. But there is another circumstance that to my mind unlocks the whole question and frees it from doubt. Some time before the 2d day of February, 1870, Judson went to Philadelphia, for on that day he wrote a letter to his son, who was in charge of his business at home, which letter is an exhibit in this case, in which he says "Tell Billy (meaning Cogswell) to hurry up the rings in all the patterns."

The language of this letter compels me to believe that before Judson left his home the whole matter had been talked over and decided between him and Cogswell. Hence, whether the drawing was made on the 24th of January or not, it must have been decided upon before the 2d of February, and, consequently, before the idea was conceived by Burke on the 6th of February. The drawing was undoubtedly made

before Judson left his home, as the whole difficulty of molding and casting must have been discussed and considered before coming to the conclusion indicated in Judson's letter. The drawing goes further than the mere rings. It provides for the difficulty in molding by showing the construction of slip-cores-in fact, shows the entire invention as complete as it has ever since been made. Burke has introduced a large amount of testimony to show that Cogswell's impatience and dissatisfaction with the experiments on the 7th, 8th, and 9th of February are incompatible with the idea that he was the inventor. Several witnesses swear that Cogswell declared the thing a failure during those experiments, and that Burke insisted upon further trial. Admitting the truthfulness of all this testimony, it does not prove that Cogswell was not the inventor; for many of the most worthy inventors often become discouraged in their attempts at reducing their inventions to practice, aud many would fail in their efforts were it not for the encouragement they receive from their mechanics and workmen. In overcoming the difficulties in molding, Judson and Cogswell had a right to avail themselves of the suggestions of their founderyman, Burke, without at all impairing their claim to being the inventors, provided those suggestions related, not to the gist of the invention, but to the mechanical obstructions in the way of reducing it to practice. These suggestions I have no doubt were made by Burke, and, in consequence of their value, he was probably honest in regarding himself as the inventor.

The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed, and priority awarded to Cogswell and Judson.

JOHN D. WILBER vs. HENRY VELIE.-EX PARTE.

APPEAL FROM THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS-IN-CHIEF IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF JOHN D. WILBER AND HENRY VELIE FOR LETTERS PATENT FOR IMPROVEMENT IN MOWERS.

(Decided April 17, 1872.)

The substitution of a ball-and-socket joint for a loose bolt-joint in the adjustable arm of a cutter-bar is but the substitution of one well-known joint for another, requiring no change or adaptation in the joint substituted, and involves no invention.

A claim for a joint in a cutter-bar, in combination with the shoe or with the bevel-wheels, is not good, inasmuch as the latter perform exactly the same functions in the same manner, whether the cutter be jointed or otherwise.

A specific new feature should not be combined in a claim with parts which have no necessary connection therewith, and whose operation is not immediately affected by the presence or absence of the said novel feature.

LEGGETT, Commissioner:

The invention in this case relates to direct-draught front-cutting mowers; and consists of such an arrangement of joints as to enable the cutter

bar to follow the surface of the ground, however that may differ, for the time being, from the line of the axle of the driving-wheels. The application was rejected, on reference to Markhams' patent of March 7, 1871.

February 10, 1863, John D. Wilber, one of the applicants in this case, obtained a patent for a front-cutting direct-draught mower, having the cutter-bar directly in front of the driving-wheels, and the draught so arranged as to have one of the horses travel in the standing grass. The frame being rigid, the cutter-bar was always held in a line parallel to the axle connecting the driving-wheels, and, consequently, would not do good work on uneven ground. Nothing, however, was done to overcome this defect until H. C. and D. C. Markham obtained their patent, March 7, 1871.

Markhams' specification sets out in terms that it is an improvement upon John D. Wilber's machine. Markhams' improvement consisted in placing a joint in the left side arm that would admit of a free vertical motion of the right end of the cutter-bar, and in the right side arm two joints, one near the axle, that would permit the right end of the cutterbar to move freely in the arc of two separate circles, and the other at the point of attachment of the right arm to the cutter-bar, permitting free vertical motion. The sole object of this invention was to secure such flexibility in the arms as to permit the cutter-bar to follow the surface of uneven ground.

The applicants in this case, feeling injured because the Markhams should patent an improvement on their machine, come into the Office eight months after with an invention to secure exactly the same thing, with three joints located in exactly the same places, and two of the joints of exactly the same kind. In place of Markhams' loose-bolt joint at the rear of the right arm, Wilber and Velie substitute the ball-andsocket joint. It is possible that the ball-and-socket joint is the better of the two; but, whether it is or not, it is only substituting one wellknown joint for another, requiring no chauge or adaptation in the joints substituted, and therefore can involve no invention. The motion required at this joint is very little, and it is doubtful whether the ball-andsocket has any advantages over the form adopted by Markhams. For the uses to which they are here applied they are substantially equivalents, each for the other, and one being patented, the other should not be.

The applicants present these combination claims, in which they claim each one of the joints, in combination with the shoes, the cutter bar, the lead-wheels, &c. These combination claims in mowers and reapers have been carried to a ridiculous extent and should be curtailed. The shoes, lead-wheels, &c., have no more to do with the invention in this case than have the shoes of the teamster or the wheels of the hay-cart. The shoes and the lead-wheels and the cutter-bar perform exactly the same duties in exactly the same way in both the old and the improved

machine. The sole purpose of the invention was to secure flexibility in the arms that carry the cutter-bar. This end having been secured by Markhams' invention, it is ridiculously absurd to suppose that applicants can now rob Markhams of their invention by patenting the only combination in which it is possible to use it. Markhams distinctly state in their application that they omit in their model and drawings all those parts of the mower not essential to illustrate their invention; but also state that the invention is intended to improve the Wilber mower, or, as it is better known, the "Eureka" mower; in other words, they substitute in the "Eureka" mower flexible arms for Wilber's rigid arms; and now Wilber and Velie seek to obtain a patent for the combination of Markhams' improvement with their mower, which is exactly what Markhams have already done.

The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Combination distinguished from aggregation.

A combination differs from a mere aggregation in that the former is a union of parts which so act upon or with each other as to modify the independent action of each, while in the latter the parts have no such relation.

Between a combination of parts and a mere aggregation there is a fundamental difference. One implies the exercise of the faculty termed invention; in the other there may be involved nothing but judgment and good taste.

Where elements are grouped together in such a manner as not to have their separate functions modified either by their juxtaposition or by their simultaneous action, there is no combination; and it is unnecessary, in examining an application upon a tool or a machine thus constituted, to inquire whether the same elements have before been grouped together. It is enough to show that the elements themselves are old. DUNCAN, Acting Commissioner:

Applicant's wrench belongs to the class that has one fixed and one movable jaw, and the two are borne upon a transverse piece, which in turn is attached to a handle formed like an ordinary bit-stock. The movable jaw can be clamped in any desired position within the permitted range of movement by means of a thumb-screw; and the inner face of each jaw is provided with a block of leather or other semi-elastic material, which is kept in place by means of a rivet and a shoulder on the face of the jaw.

The claim is for a brace-wrench consisting of the crank-stock, the two jaws with the transverse piece connecting them to the stock, the thumb set-screw, the shoulders on the jaws, and the cushions or pads; in other