Davoll et al. v. Brown. 1 Wood. & Minot. OPINION OF THE COURT. THIS action is brought for the violation of a patent-right, by the defendants, in casting at their foundery water-wheels for mills. * It was proved that several wheels were cast on [* 583 ] the same principle of the plaintiff's patent. The model was furnished by Sage. Only two wheels were cast after the defendants came to the knowledge of the plaintiff's patent. As the defendants were employed by Sage to cast the wheels, it was insisted that the action should have been brought against him, and was not maintainable against the defendants. But the Court held the defendants were liable for an infringement of the patent. But, as the defendants had cast but a few wheels, and, with the exception of two of them, had acted without a knowledge of the plaintiff's right, they suggested to the jury that nominal damages were all that the plaintiff could demand. Nominal damages were found. WILLIAM C. DAVOLL AND OTHERS V. JAMES S. BROWN. [1 Woodbury and Minot, 53. October T. 1845.] It is the duty of the Court, rather than the jury, to construe the language used in a specification of a patent, if no parol evidence is offered in explanation, or none which is contradictory. A patent is not to protect a monopoly of what existed before and belonged to others, but to protect something, which did not exist before, and which belongs to the patentee. A construction of patents, liberal for the patentees, is proper. But the description of the patent must be so certain, as to be understood by those acquainted with the subject-matter. But the whole of the specification, as well as the summary and the drawings, are generally to be examined and compared, and not one alone looked to, in Davoll et al. v. Brown. 1 Wood. & Minot. order to decide what new part or new combination is claimed to be invented and protected. In coming to a result, practical views, rather than subtle distinctions, must govern. THIS was an action on the case for a violation of a patentright, owned by the plaintiffs, for an improvement in the speeder for roving cotton. [* 54 ] * The letters-patent were averred to have issued May 19th, 1843. The general issue was pleaded, and notices given of several defences, all of which at the trial here at this term were found by the jury against the defendant. He then moved for a new trial, on account of a supposed misdirection by the Court to the jury, in relation to the specification, a copy of which is annexed.1 1 The Schedule referred to in these Letters-Patent, and making part of the same. To all whom it may concern. Be it known, that I, William C. Davoll, of Fall River, in the county of Bristol, and State of Massachusetts, have invented certain new and useful improvements in the machine known by the name of Speeder, Double Speeder, or Fly-frame, used for roving cotton, preparatory to spinning, and I do hereby declare that the following is a full and exact description thereof: - My main improvement consists in the manner in which I arrange the spindles, in two rows, by means of which arrangement only about one half the room is required to receive the same number of spindles; the operator can also attend to a greater number than usual; much less power will be required to put them in motion; the cost per spindle will also be much less, the double row requiring but little more gearing than a single row, and the machine will bear running at a much higher velocity than the English Fly-frame. In the accompanying drawing, figure 1 represents an end view of the machine, and figure 2 a top view of a spindle or flyer-rail. The position these rails occupy in the machine, is shown at n and o, figure 1, n being an end view of the spindle, and o of the flyer-rail, with the requisite gearing upon them, which is the same on each of them. These rails, instead of being drilled, like those in common use, with a single row of holes for supporting the spindles which Davoll et al. v. Brown. 1 Wood. & Minot. *The grounds for the motion will appear in the [* 55 ] opinion of the Court. B. R. Curtis and Warren, for the plaintiffs. pass through them, are drilled with a double row, as shown at a a, and b b, figure 2. The back row, b b, is placed about five inches from the front row, a a, or about the width of the flyer to be used. The holes bb, of the back row, are drilled intermediate between those of the front row a a,and by this arrangement the bobbins h are readily changed. The spindles e e e, figure 1, work up and down through the rows of holes a a, and b b, and through the tubed wheels c c, figures 1 and 2, and also through the bottoms of the flyers as seen at a. The respective revolving and vertical motions of the spindles and flyers are effected in any of the known modes. The flyers, as shown in the back row at i, figure 1, are made to stand with their planes at right angles to those of the front row k; this, with their intermediate position, greatly facilitating the changing of the bobbins. To the bottom of each flyer a tube wheel is attached, as seen at c, figures 1 and 2; and a similar wheel is attached to each spindle, as shown at c c, figure 1, and motion is consequently communicated to them independently; but the respective flyers and spindles of both rows are geared into the same intermediate wheels, ƒ ƒ, as shown in figure 2. The above constitutes the whole gearing for giving motion to the back row of flyers and spindles. It will be seen, that the flyers, as used by me and shown at i i, and kk, are made in one continuous piece, instead of being open at the bottom as is the case with those generally used in the English fly-frame, and this, among other reasons, enables me to give the increased velocity above referred to. Having thus fully described the nature of my invention, in the improved construction of the Speeder, Double Speeder, or Fly-frame, what I claim therein as new, and desire to secure by letters-patent, is the arrangement of the spindles and flyers in two rows, in combination with the described arrangement of the gearing. And this I claim, whether the said gearing be arranged precisely as herein represented, or in any other manner which is substantially the same, producing a like result, upon the same principle. WILLIAM C. DAVOLL. Davoll et al. v. Brown. 1 Wood. & Minot. Dexter and Ames, for the defendant. WOODBURY, J. This motion is founded upon the position, that, by the specification, the improvement of the plaintiff is not confined to the use of the bow-flyer, that is, the flyer in "one continuous piece," as part of his new combination; and that the Court, in charging the jury that it was so confined, on a fair construction of the whole specification and drawing, erred in point of law. In the argument, the counsel seemed to contend, that there was another error, in not leaving the point to the jury, as a question of fact, whether the bow-flyer required a different gearing from the open flyer, and if it did, then the [56] * bow-flyer formed a part of the new combination claimed; but if it did not require a different gearing, then the bow-flyer was not in point of law a portion of the new combination. But it is enough to dispose of this last position, to see that it would narrow the question of law as to what kind of flyer was contemplated in the patent, and that it must depend on a single fact, to be found by the jury. Whereas, in truth, that question depended mainly on the language used in the specification and on the drawing, and not upon any fact in the case, which was in dispute at the trial, and dehors or independent of the writing. Nor was the Court, at the trial, requested to charge the jury, that the construction of the writing in this respect depended on any such fact; nor was it understood to be argued to the jury by the counsel, that the construction depended on it, but rather on the writing itself and the drawing, with some two or three other facts, about which no controversy or conflicting evidence existed. It is well settled law, also, as to all written instruments, that their meaning in general is to be collected from the language of the instruments themselves. Davoll et al. v. Brown. 1 Wood. & Minot. The construction seldom rests on facts to be proved by parol, unless they are so referred to, as to make a part of the description and to govern it; and when it does at all depend on them, and they are proved, or admitted, and are without dispute, as here, it is the duty of the Court, on these facts, to give the legal construction to the instrument. But whether the Court gave the right construction to the patent in dispute, so far as regards the kind of flyer to be used in it, is a proper question for consideration now; and if any mistake has occurred in relation to it, in the hurry and suddenness of a trial, it ought to be corrected, and will be most cheerfully. There is no doubt as to the general principle contended for by the defendant in this case, that a patentee should describe with reasonable certainty his invention. Several reasons exist for this. One is, the act of Congress itself requires, that he "shall particularly [* 57 ] specify and point out the part, improvement, or combination which he claims as his own invention." July 4, 1836, ch. 357, § 6; 5 Stat. at Large, p. 119. And another is, that unless this is done, the public are unable to know whether they violate the patent or not, and are also unable, when the term expires, to make machines correctly, and derive the proper advantages from the patent. Bovill v. Moore, Davies's Cases, 361; Phillips on Patents, 286; Lowell v. Lewis, 1 Mason, 182, 189. Act of These principles, however, are not inconsistent with another one, equally well settled, which is, that a liberal construction is to be given to a patent, and inventors sustained, if practicable, without a departure from sound principles. Only thus can ingenuity and perseverance be encouraged to exert themselves in this way usefully to the community; and only in this way can we protect intellectual property, the labors of the mind, productions, and interests as much a man's own, and as much the fruit of his honest industry, as the wheat he |