McFarland v. Spencer. Manufacturing Company, (113 U. S., 59, 72.) the idea seems "not to spring from that intuitive faculty of the mind put forth in the search for new results, or new methods, creating what had not before existed, or bringing to light what lay hidden from vision; but, on the other hand, to be the suggestion of that common experience, which arose spontaneously and by a necessity of human reasoning, in the minds of those who had become acquainted with the circumstances with which they had to deal. ** It is but the display of the expected skill of the calling, and involves only the exercise of the ordinary faculties of reasoning upon the material supplied by a special knowledge, and the facility of manipulation which results from its habitual and intelligent practice; and is in no sense the creative work of that inventive faculty which it is the purpose of the Constitution and the patent laws to encourage and reward." iffs. * There should be a decree for the defendant. Briesen & Steele and Antonio Knauth, for the plaint Ludwig Semler, Edward C. Schaffer and Frost & Coe, for the defendant. WILLIAM MCFARLAND AND JAMES DUBOIS vs. OSCAR A. SPENCER AND EDGAR UNDERHILL. IN EQUITY. Letters patent No. 76,491, granted to William McFarland and John H. Campbell, April 7th, 1868, for a metal tenon for blind slats, are valid. The invention upheld on the ground of economy, simplicity, symmetry and durability. (Before CoXE, J., Southern District of New York, February 24th, 1885.) McFarland v. Spencer. COXE, J. The complainants are the owners of letters patent, No. 76,491, issued to William McFarland and John H. Campbell, April 7th, 1868, for a metal tenon for blindslats. The object of the invention is to provide tenons for blind-slats when the original tenons are broken off, or injured so as to become inoperative. The following diagrams will serve to illustrate the invention: Figure 1 represents the tenon applied and fitted to a blindslat, and working in the mortise of the frame, in place of the one broken or removed. Figure 2, the face view of the tenon, with escutcheon plate on its inner end. Figure 8, the same reversed, showing the connection of the escutcheon plate to the tenon by means of a beveled shoulder. The inventor declares, in the specification, that "heretofore the breaking off or the decay of a tenon has caused the entire loss of the slat, there being no means or device known, previous to my invention, whereby the tenon could be restored or repaired without incurring too much expense; and, furthermore, the repair or restoration of a broken tenon is difficult without the removal of one of the side bars of the frame." The advantages of the invention are economy, simplicity, symmetry and durability. It is much cheaper to use the McFarland v. Spencer. metal tenon than to remove the slat. A person possessed of a pocket knife and a very limited amount of mechanical skill can make the repair. Prior to the invention, it was necessary to take down the blind, separate the frame, remove the broken slat, substitute the new slat, attach it to the hand rod which operates the series of slats, and readjust the frame. All this required time and skill, was expensive and inconvenient, and, when the work was done, it was found almost impossible to make the new slat correspond in color with the old ones. The device is an exceedingly simple and unpretending one, so simple, that, to one who sees it now, the wonder is that it did not occur to some one long before the date of the patent. But it never did. Criticism that an invention is so plain that it must be perceived by all comes with poor grace from those who did not themselves perceive it. The answer is confined to specific denials of the allegations. of the bill. No affirmative defence is pleaded. The defendant introduced in evidence a patent granted to George R. Clark, March 5th, 1867, for an "improved metallic blind-slat, clasp and pivot." It consists of a metal cap, carrying a tenon, which fits on the end of the slat. The merits claimed for it, are, that it prevents longitudinal splitting and furnishes a pivot of great durability for the slat to turn on. Should a tenon become broken, the frame must necessarily be dismembered, precisely as in the case of the wooden tenon, in order to repair it. The Clark device is wholly dissimilar from that of the complainants. The defendants also, under objection, introduced testimony showing that, in 1837 or 1838, two hundred tenons were made, to fill a special order, out of 16 gauge strap iron; the strap being bent so as to grasp the slat on both sides, and a pivot to swivel the slat being riveted to the bent end. These tenons could not be used for purposes of repair except by taking the frame apart, it required mechanical skill to apply them, and they could be made only on special order, as it was necessary that they should exactly fit the slat. The defend McFarland v. Spencer. ants also proved that, between 1849 and 1851, the iron shutter of a building on Reade street, New York, was repaired with a tenon like the complainants'; also, that, in 184 and 1846, in Germany, similar tenons were used in the original construction of iron shutters, and that, for three hundred years, shutters so made had been used in the tower of the church at Wittenberg, to the front door of which Martin Luther nailed his theses. It will be seen that even had the defendants pleaded prior use, as required by section 4,920 of the Revised Statutes, there is nothing in this testimony which anticipates the complainants' invention. There is no allegation that the inventor or other persons here had knowledge of the alleged prior use in Germany. But, in any view, the evidence is wholly inadequate to defeat the patent. As showing the state of the art, the testimony, though involved in obscurity and doubt, may be admissible, and, were the question one of infringement, such proof might require the narrow construction of a broad claim, but it is obvious that it cannot avail the defendants where they deal in the identical contrivance covered by the patent. No one, so far as the record shows, ever used, prior to the patent, a tenon like the complainants', on wooden blindslats, for the purposes of repair. This is what the invention covers. There should be a decree for the complainants, for an injunction and an account, with costs. Peter Van Antwerp, for the plaintiffs. Edward S. Clinch and E. T. Rice, for the defendants. Goodyear and Ives v. The Hartford Spring and Axle Company. GOODYEAR AND IVES vs. THE HARTFORD SPRING AND AXLE COMPANY. IN EQUITY. Letters patent granted to John S. Steele, February 19th, 1867, for an improved sand-box upon carriage-axles, are invalid. An axle with the axle-box enlarged at the inner end, and projecting over and enclosing the collar, existed before; and an axle with an extra loose collar slipped over its square bar and pushed near to the wearing collar, leaving a chamber, as a "sand-box," between the two collars, existed before. Steele added the one to the other, and made the whole solid, like the ordinary wearing collar. The arrangement was an actual and a commercial success, but the extra collar was used for the same purpose as before, with no change in the manner of applying it, except to make it solid with the axle, the wearing collar having long been made in the same manner. The alteration was an obvious and ordinary improvement and not patentable. (Before SHIPMAN, J., Connecticut, February 27th, 1885.) SHIPMAN, J. This is a bill in equity to prevent the alleged infringement of letters patent granted to John S. Steele, February 19th, 1867, for an improved sand-box upon carriage axles. The patentee says, in his specification: "My invention consists in a light extra sand collar C, placed upon a common axle a short distance from the wearing collar A. The chamber E, thus formed by the collar A, collar C, and covering D, prevents the mud and dust from coming in contact with the wearing collar A. The housing or covering D is formed by an expansion and continuation of the pipe box F." The claim is for "The sand collar C and chamber E, in combination with the extended pipe box F, for the purpose set forth." The question in the case is that of patentable novelty. A 66 common axle is an axle that has a single nut in front, with a solid collar, or collar "shrunk on," at the inside end. The collar at the back forms a bearing surface, which receives |