[Supreme Court of the United States.] HENDY V. THE GOLDEN STATE AND MINERS' IRON WORKS ET AL. Decided May 14, 1888. 43 O. G., 1117. 1. CUSENBARY AND MARS-ÖRE-STAMP FEEDERS. Letters Patent No. 140,250, granted June 24, 1873, to Cusenbary and Mars, for an improvement in ore stamp feeders, adjudged invalid as to the first claim for lack of patentable invention. 2. PATENTABLE INVENTION-WHAT IS NOT., Merely putting rollers under an article to make it movable when without the rollers it would not be movable does not involve patentable invention. 3. PRACTICE-LACK OF INVENTION. The defense of no patentable invention can be made without setting it up in an answer. 4. AGGREGATION-NOT COMBINATION. There is no patentable combination between rollers which make the support movable and a feeding-cylinder mounted on such support. 5. INFRINGEMENT—WHEN NONE. The cylinder of the claim being described as having chambers or depressions, and the defendants' cylinder being smooth throughout, there was no infringement in this particular. APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California. Mr. J. H. Miller and Mr. J. P. Langhorne for the appellant. Mr. M. A. Wheaton for the appellee. Mr. Justice BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the court: This is a suit in equity, brought by Joshua Hendy against the Golden State and Miners' Iron Works, a corporation, and six individual defendants, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California, for the infringement of Letters Patent No. 140,250, granted June 24, 1873, to James D. Cusenbary and James A. Mars, for an improvement in ore-stamp feeders. The specification, claims, and drawings of the patent are as follows: Our invention relates to improvements in that class of ore-feeders for quartz-mills in which a pawl and ratchet are employed to operate the feeder automatically by the drop of the stamp. Our improvements consist, first, in mounting a feed-cylinder upon a movable frame or truck, so that it can be readily shifted from place to place when it is desired to repair the mill, and, lastly, of an improved arrangement for operating the pawl-rod by the drop of the stamp without the use of springs. In order to more fully illustrate and explain our invention, reference is had to the accompanying drawings forming a part of this specification, in which— Figure 1 is a vertical section. Fig. 2 is a back view. Fig. 3 is a transverse section. A represents the frame of a stamp-mill. B is the stamp. C is the stamp-stem with its tappet D. F is the cam-shaft, and G the cam which lifts the stamp, all of which are arranged in the ordinary manner of constructing a stamp-battery. H H are the foundation-timbers upon which the feeding-cylinder I is mounted. These timbers are mounted upon rollers so that the cylinder and frame can be moved about as desired. The cylinder I is made of cast metal, and has its outer surface formed into chambers or depressions J J, which are separated from each other by longitudinal partitions k. The cylinder and its carriage, when in working position, are placed below the hopper L, so that the ore from the hopper will fall into the chambers, and, as the cylinder revolves, be carried around until it falls by its own weight from the chambers upon an inclined apron, M, which directs it beneath the stamp. This feeding-cylinder, being made of cast metal, will not wear out like the endless belts heretofore used in this class of machines, and as it turns upon journals like any common roller or cylinder, it can not become clogged, as the endless belt is liable to do. To one end of the cylinder a ratchet-wheel, N, is secured, and this ratchet-wheel operated by a pawl-bar, C, to revolve the cylinder. In order to operate the pawl-bar from the tappet a horizontal shaft, p, has its opposite ends supported in boxes which are secured to the sides of the upright timbers of the frame, so that the shaft will pass across directly in front of the tappet transversely to the movement of the stamp-stem. A fixed arm, q, extends backward from the shaft p, so that its extremity will terminate below the tappet in position to receive a blow from it when the stamp falls. Another fixed arm, r, extends forward from the shaft directly over the ratchet-wheel, and to the extremity of this arm the upper end of the pawl-bar o is attached by means of a trunnion-block, t. This bar extends down to the middle of the periphery of the ratchet-wheel, and has one or more upward-projecting teeth on its lower end, which serve to engage with the teeth of the ratchet when the pawl is lifted by the rock-shaft, and thus rotate the feeding-cylinder. It will, therefore, be evident that at each drop of the stamp the tappet will strike the arm q and carry it downward, thus giving the shaft p a rocking motion, the weight of the pawl and its arm r serving to rotate the shaft in an opposite direction, thus feeding the ore automatically when it is needed. When there is a sufficient quantity of ore beneath the stamp the drop will not be sufficient to operate the cylinder; but when the quantity of ore beneath the stamp is reduced the drop is greater, and consequently the tappet strikes the arm q and operates the cylinder. Having thus described our invention, what we claim, and desire to secure by Letters Patent, is— 1. The feeding-cylinder I mounted upon the movable timbers H H, substantially as and for the purpose above described. 2. The rock-shaft p with its fixed arms q r, in combination with the pawl-bar o, ratchet-wheel N, and feeding-cylinder I, when arranged to be operated by the tappet D, substantially as and for the purpose described. The answer denies infringement, and sets up two patents on the ques tion of novelty, and denies the utility of the invention. After replication, proofs were taken on both sides, and the circuit court on a hearing dismissed the bill. Infringement is alleged of only the first claim, namely: 1. The feeding-cylinder I mounted upon the movable timbers H H, substantially as and for the purpose above described. The specification states in regard to the subject of the first claim that the improvement consists in mounting a feed cylinder upon a movable frame or truck, so that it can be readily shifted from place to place when it is desired to repair the mill. The specification speaks of the timbers H H as being the "foundation timbers," upon which the feeding-cylinder is mounted, and it says that those timbers— are mounted upon rollers, so that the cylinder and frame can be moved about as desired. Therefore" the movable timbers H H" of the claim are timbers made movable by being mounted upon rollers. The specification also states that That cylinder I is made of cast metal, and has its outer surface formed into chambers or depressions J J, which are separated from each other by longitudinal partitions K. It is contended in the defense that claim 1 of the patent is really a claim only for making the timbers movable by mounting them upon rollers, so as to be able to move the cylinder and frame about as desired, and that this required no exercise of any inventive faculty. This seems to be the purport of the invention, as stated in the specification. It is the movable character of the frame on which the feed-cylinder is mounted, so that the cylinder and frame may be readily shifted from place to place when repairs are desired, that is designated as the invention. When the mill is in operation, the movable feature is not brought into play. It is only when the mill is out of operation that the movable feature is to be used. The first claim does not appear to cover the functions or operation of the feeding cylinder I as a part of the mill when in operation; and, interpreting it by its own language, as well as by that of the description in the specification, it covers only the mounting upon rollers of the timbers which carry the feeding-cylinder. Merely putting rollers under an article so as to make it movable when without the rollers it would not be movable does not involve the inventive faculty, and is not patentable. (Atlantic Works v. Brady, 107 U. S., 192, 200; Thompson v. Boisselier, 114 U. S., 1, 12, and cases there cited; Yale Lock Manufacturing Co. v. Greenleaf, 117, U. S., 554, 559; Pomace Holder Co. v. Furguson, 119 U. S., 335, 338, and cases there cited.) This defense is one which can be availed of without setting it up in an answer. (Dunbar v. Myers, 94 U. S., 187; Slawson v. Grand Street R. R. Co., 107 U. S., 649; Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U. S., 354, 358.) Moreover, there is no patentable combination between the rollers which make the timbers movable and the feeding-cylinder I, mounted upon the timbers. The union of parts is merely an aggregation. The feeding-cylinder mounted upon timbers which have rollers operates no differently from what it does when mounted upon timbers which have no rollers. (Hailes v. Van Wormer, 20 Wall., 353, 368; Reckendorfer v. Faber, 92 U. S., 347, 357; Pickering v. McCullough, 104 U. S., 310, 318; Bussey v. Excelsior Manufacturing Co., 110 U. S., 131, 146.) There is nothing patentable in the aggregation. The defendants' machine has a smooth cylinder and not a cylinder with chambers or depressions. The specification of the patent describes the cylinder I as having its outer surface formed into chambers or depressions separated from each other by longitudinal partitions: The cylinder of claim 1 is "the feeding cylinder I," and to be such cylinder must be a cylinder substantially as described, and it is described specifically as having chambers or depressions. The claim can not be construed to cover a cylinder with a smooth surface not formed into chambers. (Fay v. Cordesman, 109 U. S., 408, 420, 421; Sargent v. Hall Safe and Lock Co., 114 U. S., 63, 86; Shepard v. Carrigan, 116 U. S., 593, 597, 598; White v. Dunbar, 119 U. S., 47, 51, 52; Crawford v. Heysinger, 123 U. S., 589, 606, 607, ante 185.) The decree of the circuit court is affirmed. [United States Circuit Court-Southern District of Ohio, Western Division.] Decided May 7, 1888. 43 O. G., 1118. JURISDICTION-ACT OF MARCH 3, 1887, The $2,000 limitation placed upon the jurisdiction of the court under the act of March 3, 1887, does not apply to patent cases or to suits for the infringement of patents. ON DEMURRER for want of jurisdiction. Mr. J. H. Twohig and Messrs. Howson & Howson for the complainants. Messrs. Parkinson & Parkinson for the defendant. JACKSON, J.: The question presented by one ground of demurrer in this case-viz., whether the jurisdiction of this court is defeated because the matter in dispute does not exceed, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of $2,000—has at the request of counsel for the defendant been reconsidered by the court, and as the result of that re-examination the court is confirmed in the conclusion heretofore announced, that the $2,000 limitation placed upon the jurisdiction of the court by and under the act of March 3, 1887, does not apply to patent cases or to suits for infringement of patents. The exclusive jurisdiction vested in the courts of the United States in cases arising under the patent-right and copyright laws of the United States (sec. 711 Rev. Stats.) and the allowance of writs of error and appeals in such cases without regard to the sum or value in dispute (sec. 699 Rev. Stats.) were not repealed, either expressly or by implication, by the act of March 3, 1875. The act of March 3, 1887, only purports to amend the act of March 3, 1875, and by no fair or proper construction can it be held to repeal the foregoing statutory provisions relating to the exclusive jurisdiction of this court in cases arising under the patent laws without reference to the amount involved. The acts of 1875 and 1887 both refer to that class of cases in which the Federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction with State courts. They do not apply to cases arising under the patent and copyright laws, as to which exclusive jurisdiction is vested in the courts of the United States, without reference to the amount involved. The court accordingly adheres to its former ruling on this question, and overrules this ground of demurrer, with costs. [Supreme Court of the United States.] FLOWER ET AL. v. THE CITY OF DETROIT. 1. BAILEY-HYDRANTS. Decided May 14, 1888. 43 O. G., 1348. Reissued Letters Patent No. 6,990, granted March 14, 1876, to Thomas R. Bailey, Jr., for an improvement in hydrants, adjudged invalid as to the first claim and not infringed as to the third claim thereof. 2. REISSUE-MODEL ALONE NOT SUFFICIENT BASIS. The rule in Parker & Whipple Company v. Yale Lock Company (123 U. S., 87; 25 O. G., 290) affirmed that the Patent Office model alone is not to be considered the basis for a reissue in which a change of the invention of the original patent 18 sought. APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan. Mr. E. J. Hill for the appellants. Mr. George L. Roberts for the appellee. Mr. Justice BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the court: This is a suit in equity, brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan by James Flower, Thomas |