« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
of infringement depends upon the construction to be given to the Beschke patent.
In view of the state of the art at the date of the patent, as well as upon what is clearly described in his specification and claimed in his claims, it appears to be clear that the invention of Beschke is described and claimed as consisting in a lamp, or can, or barrel, packed in part with an absorbent or finely granulated material (excluding sand and including saw-dust, cotton, beads, shot, gravel, asbestus, and their equivalents), and over them “ a body of wire-gauze or perforated thin plate, either rolled up like paper scrolls or put flat together like bookleaves."
The defendant sells a lamp for heating purposes, manufactured under letters patent issued to Thomas W. Houchin, May 4, 1875, called Houchin's patent pocket cook-stove. The lamp is made of metal, and is filed with cotton covered with a layer of asbestus, or of porous fireproof cement of which asbestus is an ingredient. The upper opening is covered with one thickness of wire-gauze. There is no tube as dis tinguished from the body of the lamp, and there is no “ body of wiregauze or perforated thin plate, either rolled up like paper scrolls or put flat together like book-leaves."
Wherever in the Beschke patent wire-gauze or perforated thin plate is alluded to, it is in the form of a scroll or of layers, like the leaves of a book, and after constantly repeating this description throughout the patent, and never using the words without some description of a scroll or layers, except in one instance, and then “wire-gauze combined and shaped as mentioned,” the patentee adds, “I disclaim also the simple use of mere wire-gauze or perforated thin plate not rolled up like paper scrolls or put flat together like book-leaves." The wire-gauze or perforated thin plate, described in the claim of the Beschke patent, must be construed as referring to wire-gauze or perforated thin plate rolled up like paper scrolls, or put flat together like book-leaves, as described in the specification, and upon this construction of the claim in the patent the defendant does not infringe.
Bill dismissed with costs.
(United States Circuit Court-Northern District of Illinois.]
HERMAN VOGLER vs. EDWARD SEMPLE.
0. G., vol. xi, p. 923.
In Equity.-Before BLODGETT, J. The claim in a patent must be for something described in the specification, so that any
person of ordinary mechanical skill, or skill in the art covered by the patent, can,
from the specification, make a mechanism which will contain the claim. The purpose of a reissue is to enable one to secure what he was entitled to in his orig
inal patent, but, through inadvertence or mistake, did not obtain; but it cannot be made the means of covering anything which was not in the original invention.
The novelty of a patented invention is not impeached by a prior patent which did not
originally describe the invention, but has since been enlarged by reissue so as to
include it. Any device which secures substantially the same results as the patentee's, by the same
or equivalent mechanism, is an infringement. MUNDAY & Evarts for complainant. N. C. GRIDLEY for defendant.
This is a bill in equity for an injunction, and an account of profits and damages for an alleged infringement of a patent granted by the United States to the complainant, January 11, 1867, for an “improve. ment in trunks," being a reissue of an original patent to the same substantial purport, dated October 6, 1874.
The answer denies the infringement, and also denies that complainant is the original and first inventor of the device set forth and claimed as new in his original and reissued patent.
Complainant's patent is for a removably-hinged tray in the body of a trunk; the parts being so arranged and combined as to admit of the ready removal of the tray from the trunk, and yet so adjusted as to allow the tray to be turned up on its hinges, into, or against, the cover or top. This is accomplished by the peculiar form of the hinge, one leaf of which is permanently fastened to the tray, and the other so arranged as to be inserted in sockets, which are firmly fixed to the back wall of the trunk; the whole being so arranged as to admit of a ready removal of the hinged tray from the trunk, and so adjusted as to allow it an upand-down play.
Three obvious advantages are obtained by this hinged removable tray: First, the ready removability of the tray from the trunk when desired; second, such a combivation or arrangement as shall make the tray remorable by a straight vertical lift, so as not to disamrange the contents; third, the free up-and-down play or movement of the tray, so that it will readily adjust itself to the pressure from the contents above or below; this latter is accomplished by giving such levgth to the loose or free leaf of the hinge as may be necessary to attain the result.
There is no eridence in the case that any one had ever so hinged a tray in the body of a trunk as to permit of its removal, or to give a tray the peculiar characteristics of complainant's device.
In 1866, one Plumer obtained a patent for a tray removably binged in the lid of a trunk. His original device, however, had none of the pecu. liar characteristics of complainant's tray. His claim was
* Attaching the tray C to the npper portiou of the trunk by means of slots and pins, substantially as described.
He does not describe a device capable of being applied to the body of a trunk, so as to produce a removably-hinged tray like complainant's.
Between the issuing of the patent sued on and the commencement of this suit, one Romadka (who is defendant's vendor, and, as it was stated
on the trialand not denied, is defending this suit) obtained an assignment of the Plumer patent, and has bad a reissue. And in this reissue, dated March 21, 1876, he is allowed two claims :
1. A trunk provided with a removably-hinged compartment-tray.
2. A trunk, and in combination therewith a compartment-tray removably binged by means of socket-bearings D attached to the trunk, and pins attached to the compartment-tray, substantially as herein described and for the purpose set forth.
The binge described in the reissue patent is the same as in the origipal. And while the first claim allowed in the reissue is for a trunk provided with a removably.hinged compartment-tray,” yet there is no description or specification by which we are taught how to place a removably-hinged tray in the body of a trank. The whole description refers to placing the tray in the lid, and nowhere else.
It is well understood by all patent lawyers that the claim must be for something described in the specifications, so that any person of ordinary mechanical skill, or skill in the art covered by the patent, can; from the specification, make a mechanism which will contain the claim. Now, here is nothing in this Plumer reissue which tells how to put a removably-hinged tray in any part of the trunk, except the lid. It does not describe how it could be adapted to the body, nor any provision for any other hinge than the pintle and socket binge. The general principle involved in all reissues is, that there cau be nothing given in the reissue which was not in the original specifications or drawings, although some minor amendments have been at times allowed in the original specifications or drawings, for the purpose of more accurate and specific description; that is to say, the reissue cannot be made to cover anything which was not in the original invention. The only purpose of a reissue in to enable one who has, by a mistake or inadvertence, not taken what he was entitled to in his original patent to obtain it. The reissue was only intended to cover omissions of the Patent Office, or of the inventor, in not claiming that to which he was entitled as an inventor. It therefore seems very clear to me that the defendant takes nothing for the purposes of this case by his reissue. Indeed, it is hard for ine to understand how the broad claim, number one, could have been allowed under the specifications in the original or reissued patent, it being manifest that Plumer only intended to describe and patent a device for hinging a tray in the top of the trunk by his particular pintle and socket binge. This being all the proof as to prior use, I have no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that the defense, for want of novelty, is not made out.
As to the question of infringement, the proof shows that defendant has sold a trunk with a removably-hinged tray in the body of the trunk. His tray responds in a degree to all the peculiar qualities of complainant's tray; that is, it is removably hinged, so as to admit of being taken out by a straight vertical lift, and is adjustable, in a degree, to the contents of the trunk above or below. He does not use the specific form of binge described by complainant, but complainant does not con
fine himself to any particular form, reserving the right to adopt any hinge which will give the substantial results claimed for his device.
The question is, Does complainant's patent protect him in the exclusive right to binge a tray in the body of a trunk so as to secure the results obtained by his device, or is he limited to the special mechanical devices by which those results are obtained ?
I am of opinion that, as there is no evidence that any one ever made a removably binged tray in the body of a trunk, complainant is entitled to the broad claim allowed him in his patent, for
1. In a trunk, and in combination therewith a tray, removably hinged in the body of the said trunk, substantially as and for the purposes set forth.
2. In a trunk, a compartment-tray, provided with the strap-hinges in combination with sockets attached to the back and inside of the trunk-body, substantially as described, for the purpose of removably hinging the tray.
That is to say, any device which secures substantially the same results as complainant's, by the same or equivalent mechanism, is an infringement on complainant's patent. The defendant does not use Vogler's strap-binge and socket, but in place of it he uses a hook and socket or roller and socket-not the pintle and socket of Plumer, but a hook attached to the back wall of the trunk and a roller fastened to the back and upper edge of the tray, so as to engage with and rest upon the hook, the two when in juxtaposition making a hinge which performs the substantial functions of complainant's hinge, except that for lack of the elongated strap it is more readily disengaged; but when the parts are together, it operates in all essential particulars as the equivalent of complainant's strap-hinge. I am, therefore, of opinion that defend. ant's tray is, in all its material features as a removably-hinged tray, an infringement of complainant's patent.
The defendant's hinge is, as above stated, a roller hook or bar, projecting from the back of the tray, and lying parallel therewith, and a socket. like lip or catch fastened to the back wall of the trunk. The bar drops upon the lip to make the binge. It will be readily understood that, upon lifting the tray, the parts of this binge are separated at once, while in Vogler's strap-hinge the parts remain engaged until the strap is lifted entirely out of the socket. It is in effect the same as the Vogler, if you should cut off the Volger strap very short; so that I can have no doubt that the defendant's method of hinging the tray is a method substantially equivalent to the Vogler method. And while Vogler may not be in a position to invoke the broadest doctrine of equivalents, yet he is in a position to invoke the doctrine to this extent, at least, that he is entitled to the method of hinging the tray in the body of a trunk by his mechanism, or any mechanism operating substantially like bis, and which produces the same results.
The doctrine of equivalents in this respect has been elucidated very fully and clearly by the Supreme Court in the tuck-creaser cases recently decided, and which went up from his honor Judge Drummond. The extent to which a patentee is entitled to invoke the doctrine of equivalents is there very ably and clearly discussed, and I think I am entirely within the rule in that case when I say that I have no doubt but that the defendant in this case has infringed upon the Vogler patent by the adoption of the hinge which is now before me.
There will be a decree for the complainant, with a reference to the master to take proof and report as to damages.
(United States Circuit Court-District of Connecticut.]
RICHARD P. BRUFF, TRUSTEE, vs. WILLIAM A. IVES.
0. G. vol. xi,
In Equity. Before SHIPYAN, J.-Decided April 12, 1877.
The invention secured to James Swan in his reissued patent of October 21, 1873, con
sisting of the method and means for forming auger-lips thus described, is not anticipated by the patent to Ransom Cook, inasmuch as the former bends and swages or
draws out the lips, while the latter merely twists or bends them. Swan's invention consists, generally, in the combination of the two sets of dies holding
and forming, so that the action of the rotating forming-dies upon the lips clamped
by the griping-dies may upset and form the lips. Claims are to be construed in connection with the specification, and in view of the
actual invention and of the state of the art. Although the patented dies might be used in connection with a previous machine, that
fact does not permit their unauthorized use, the dies being new in themselves.
Tbis is a bill in equity, charging an infringement by the defendant of reissued Letters Patent No. 5,624, dated October 21, 1873, which were issued to Richard P. Bruff, assignee of James Swan, for an improvement in machinery for manufacturing curved or gage-lip augers. The original patent was issued to said Swan on June 9, 1868. Since the suit was brought the patent has been assigned by the plaintiff, and no injunction is now asked.
In the manufacture of augers, the end of the bit-blank is first cut out into a trident-like shape, and the body of the blank is then twisted into the form of an auger. The central prong at the end of the blank becomes the pivot of the auger, and the two other prongs become the floor-lips or cutting-edges. Formerly, these cutting-edges were formed by hand. The operation of bringing or drawing the cutting-edges so as to start from the base of the screw, and to continue in a line with the axis of the thread upon the pivot of the auger, was a difficult one and required skilled labor. The patentee describes the object and nature of the invention as follows: