abut against each other. The teeth can oscillate independently of each other upon the axle, but in the tilting operation move simultaneously by means of a transverse bar or yoke which bears upon one end of the teeth. In the tilting operation the center of the axle is the center of oscillation, and the yoke unites all the teeth, so that they oscillate as a unit upon the axle. If this device does not present a rake-head in the strict definition of the term, it does in substance. The head of a rake is that part which holds the teeth together for unitary action. The Sabin device does the same work in the same way as Holden's, and the devices in the one are but the equivalent for those in the other. It contains a set of teeth which oscillate as a unit on a continuouslyrevolving axle, so that the center of oscillation coincides with the center of rotation of the axle. That Holden made structural changes and constructed a more efficient machine than Sabin's-one which involves invention and which was not anticipated by Sabin's-seems quite clear; but that he is not entitled to claim the broad invention which the reissue was designed to secure seems to me equally clear. The bill is therefore dismissed. [United States Circuit Court-Southern District of New York.] MCDONALD v. SIDENBERG ET AL. Decided October 25, 1879. 18 O. G., 193. The construction given by the court in the case of McDonald r. Shepherd to the patent granted to Helen M. McDonald, September 29, 1874, for an improvement in skirtprotectors, approved. Helen M. Mc Donald for herself. Mr. E. N. Dickerson for the defendants. BLATCHFORD, J.: In the original case against Blackmer, Judge Shepley held that the plaintiff was the first and original inventor of a skirt-protector having a fluted or plated border bound with or composed of enameled cloth or other water-proof material, as distinguished from a skirt-facing (which, he remarked, was an entirely different article) and from a skirt-protector made of wiggin or similar material, which was substantially useless for the purpose as compared with the plaintiff's invention. In the original Blackmer case the Mackee patent of January 10, 1865, was introduced to defeat the plaintiff's patent; also, the Mandell patent of May 19, 1874, application filed November 26, 1873. The plaintiff's patent was granted 1 September 29, 1874, on an application filed May 10, 1873. The plaintiff carried the making of her invention back, in the original Blackmer suit, to December, 1861. Various unpatented devices were introduced in that suit to anticipate the plaintiff's invention, but none of them were earlier in date than December, 1861. The defendants in the Blackmer suit were then allowed to set up the De Forest patent of January 15, 1867, to defeat the plaintiff's patent, by a supplemental answer, and further proofs were taken. Judge Lowell heard the case, and held, on the evidence, that the plaintiff's invention was made in 1861; that the De Forest invention was later, and that the plaintiff's patent was valid. In the Blackmer case the defendant's article had specifically a fluted or plaited border. Subsequently the case of McDonald v. Shepherd came before Judge Lowell, in which the defendant's article, though like the plaintiff's in other respects, did not have a fluted or plaited border. Judge Lowell said that it was within the description of the plaintiff's patent, unless the fluted or plaited border was an essential part of the plaintiff's invention, so that a plain or straight border, not gathered into plaits, would be without the scope of the patent. He further said: I understand that the fluting or plaiting is merely a part of the finish proper, and perhaps necessary when the skirt to be protected is made of a certain shape-unnecessary when it is of another shape. It seems to me that both of the parties took for granted in that case [the Blackmer case before Judge Shepley] that a skirt-protector not plaited would defeat the plaintiff's patent if proved to have been made before the date of her invention. I certainly so understood it in deciding upon the questions raised by the discovery of the De Forest patent. An injunction was granted. The defendants' article in the present case does not have a fluted or plaited border, but it is like the plaintiff's article in all other respects. I concur with Judge Lowell in not regarding the fluted or plaited border as essential, in view of the state of the art prior to the plaintiff's invention in December, 1861. The affidavits presented by the defendant in the present case do not show any article anticipating that date like the plaintiff's invention, whether with or without a fluted or plaited border. T. D. Day gives no date earlier than 1865. The article of 1858, which J. Morrison speaks of, was only a facing. His entire affidavit is too vague and general. H. Douglass, as to a skirt-protector of enameled cloth over a facing, gives, as a date, "as early as 1861." This is not sufficient. R. Hood goes back only to 1865. An injunction is granted. མ་ [United States Circuit Court-District of Massachusetts.] MUNSON ET AL. v. THE GILBERT & BARKER MANUFACTURING COMPANY. Decided October 9, 1878. 18 O. G., 194. The fourth claim in Letters Patent No. 12,535, granted March 13, 1855, to John C. Pedrick, which is for "the application and use of the meter-wheel with its case and contents as an air-blast apparatus, operated by weights or otherwise, not meaning to claim the method of using the meter for measuring gas," construed in connection with the specification, is for the meter itself and not for a mere use or result, and is valid. Mr. Thomas L. Livermore and Mr. George W. Morse for the complainants. Mr. William Stanley for the defendants. LOWELL, J.: Patent No. 12,535, dated March 13, 1855, was issued to John C. Pedrick, assignor of the plaintiffs through a chain of title not disputed. The inventor was Charles Cunningham, and we may say here that it is proved to our satisfaction that he made the invention as early as May 7, 1851. In the specification Cunningham begins with the statement that he has invented a new and useful machine or apparatus for driving a current of air through a reservoir containing benzole or other hydrocarbon for the purpose of generating an illuminating gas or vapor therefrom. He then says his invention consists in the use of a common gas-meter wheel, or its equivalent, revolving in water or other liquid, or of other equivalent apparatus, for forcing a current of air through a reservoir containing either of the aforesaid hydrocarbons or admixtures, &c. He then describes the mode of preparing and using the gas-meter by driving it with a weight or spring, and by admitting the air through an opening, A, of the meter-case and forcing it out of the end thereof by a pipe into a reservoir. He then describes the mode of charging the current with the hydrocarbons and conducting it to the burner. The first three claims are for combinations or parts of the machine, which are none of them used by the defendants. The fourth claim is for The application and use of the meter-wheel with its case and contents as an airblast apparatus, operated by weights or otherwise, not meaning to claim the method of using the meter for measuring gas. It is admitted that two persons in this country invented a similar mode of furnishing an air-blast for making an illuminating gas not far from the time of the patent. One of them was refused a patent, and with the other, who had obtained one before Cunningham's application was filed, an interference was declared, in which the Patent Office de cided in favor of Cunningham as, in fact, the first inventor. This is the patent of O. P. Drake. From the evidence in the record, we agree with the conclusion reached at that time, and are of the opinion that the invention of Cunningham was earlier. Similar remarks will apply to Adams. Two English patents are produced which, taken together, would have made up, perhaps, the air-blast apparatus of Cunningham. In Lowe's patent he recommends the use of a weight to drive a gas-meter; but his purpose appears to us to have been to increase and regulate the action of the gasometer, and not to make an air-blast apparatus. Critchett, on the other hand, admitted air into his apparatus for certain purposes, but did not have an air-pump at all resembling the plaintiffs'. We think the slight change obvious, perhaps to an inventor, of admitting air into a meter, and using the meter-wheel as an air-pump, although it had before been used with similar machinery to increase the force of the gasometer, was a patentable invention. The claim itself is attacked as too broad. It is said to claim a mere use or result. The language is not very well chosen, but we think, taking the claim and specification together, it is intended to claim the meter itself as described, and for the purpose set forth, as contradistinguished from an ordinary meter for measuring the flow of gas. Possibly it may have been intended to claim such a meter used as an air-pump in other combinations of machinery, if it should be found useful in any such, and there is nothing in the record to show that such a claim might not be supported. Infringement is clearly proved. The patent having expired, no injunction is asked for. Interlocutory decree for the claimants. [United States Circuit Court-Southern District of New York.] COLLENDER v. GRIFFITH ET AL. Decided May 4, 1880. 18 O. G., 241. 1. The fact that a mechanical patent was issued more than two years after the date of a design patent showing, but not claiming, a like invention will not invalidate the former. 2. A billiard-table having the broad side rails made of beveled or inclined planes shows sufficient utility and advantage in the way of cheapness of construction, as compared with a table having sides of curved or ogee form, to support a patent. 3. Reissued Letters Patent No. 6,469, granted to H. W. Collender, June 1, 1875, for an improvement in billiard-tables, declared invalid in view of evidence showing the existence in this country of similar tables many years prior to the date of the patent. Mr. George Harding and Mr. H. D. Donnelly for the plaintiff. BLATCHFORD, J.: This suit is brought on reissued letters patent granted to the plaintiff June 1, 1875, for an improvement in billiard-tables, the original patent having been granted to him as the inventor December 23, 1873. The specification says: Previous to my invention it has been customary, in the construction of billiardtables, to form the body of the table with vertical sides extending downward from lines a short distance within the outer edges of the cushion-rails, or with what are generally designated as "straight” or “vertical” side rails, and previous to my invention nearly all billiard-tables manufactured and used in this country have been made according to this plan. A great variety of designs in the finish and ornamentation and in the shape of the legs have been devised and carried into use, and many and great improvements in the past few years have been made in the construction of the beds, cushions, and details of the table, for which numerous patents have been granted to me and to other billiard-table makers, until nearly all the requisites of a perfectlyworking and unique apparatus or machine appeared to have been attained; but one serious inconvenience and disadvantage still remained in the shape of the body of the table. It was necessary, on account of the weight of the bed, and to provide for a sure and lasting support of the same, to have the side rails or the body of the table of considerable depth, and their arrangement in vertical planes extending downward the requisite distance has proved a source of great disadvantage to the player in preventing him from assuming a position, with his leg nearest the table, by which he might be enabled to place and conveniently hold his bridge-hand as far over on the bed-table or as far away from the cushion as possible in the execution of shots in which the cue-ball rests far from the cushions, and thus avoid the use of the bridge, which to most players is objectionable, and which it is of great advantage to dispense with as much as possible. It has also been customary, previous to my invention, to make billiard-tables with the sides of the body run under, somewhat after the fashion of what are known as "French" tables or "ogee" tables; but in all this, kind of tables the sides or broad rails have been so formed and so arranged relatively to the extreme upper edge of the table, or to the edge of the cushion-rail, that the lower part of the sides or that portion likely to be on a level with the bended knee of the player obstructed the advanced leg of the player, beside which objection the legs of the table were not placed far enough under to be always entirely out of the way of the player's feet, and the curved or ogee form of the sides rendered the manufacture of such tables very expensive. My invention has for its object to overcome all these objectionable features in the structure and form of the table, and to provide a billiard-table which, while it shall be equally as strong and durable in construction as either of the kinds heretofore made, and equally as desirable in all other respects, shall embody the great advantage of having its broad rails (or the lower portion of its sides) and feet so located as to be always entirely out of the way of the legs and feet of the player, and so as to permit the player to place his bended knee as far under the cushion-rail and table-bed as may be necessary, to effect the placement of his bridge-hand as far as possible from the cushion, and at the same time properly support his center of gravity or maintain his equilibrium; and to these ends and objects my invention consists in a billiard-table in which the broad rails are so beveled or inclined under and so arranged with the cushion-rails (or edge of the table) and the table-bed that while the latter shall be properly supported the broad rails shall be always out of the way of the player's bended knee, as will be hereinafter more fully explained. To enable those skilled in the art to make and use my invention, I will more fully explain the construction and operation thereof, referring by letters to the accompanying drawings, in which— Figure 1 is a side elevation, and Fig. 2 a vertical cross-section, of a billiard- able made according to my invention. |