ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

on which they rest. It is not literally true that the bearing boxes alone are vertically movable, or that they are detached from the arms which support them. The movable bearings are integral with rods which support them, and the rods rest upon levers which are pinned together, and are operated by a weight which secures the automatic adjustment. Stripped of the hollow sleeves whereby the rods which support the bearings are held in alignment, and in which they vertically move, the appellee's device is identical with that of B. D. Whitney, patented July 13, 1875 (No. 165,463). But among the numerous band-saw mills which preceded the appellee's invention are at least two in which are found all the elements of the appellee's first claim after reading into it his own explanation of the terms "independent vertically movable bearings." On August 14, 1877, letters patent No. 194,225 were issued to William H. Doane and George W. Bugbee for an improvement in band-saw mills in which the axle of the upper wheel is supported upon bearings upon either side thereof, and in which the bearings are independently vertically movable. Upon the one side the bearing is attached to a stem, which vertically moves in a sleeve, and rests upon a spring at the base. The other bearing is connected with a stem which is guided by a sleeve, and rests upon a lever. By means of the lever and the spring automatic adjustment is secured. The German patent No. 28,833, granted to Krumrein and Katz, of date March 8, 1884, exhibits independent vertically movable bearings upon either side of the upper wheel automatically adjusted by means of rods which rest upon a doubled forked weight lever. It meets all of the requirements of the appellee's claim as the claim reads and as it is interpreted by the appellee. There is a difference, however, in the fact that in the German patent the points of support of the movable bearings are not in vertical lines passing through the same, but are removed to one side thereof, a difference which will be alluded to hereafter. Belonging to the prior art are found also numerous devices for automatically adjusting belt pulleys which operate in the same manner and are used for the same purpose as the devices for automatically adjusting the upper band-saw wheel, which is, in a sense, a belt pulley, the band saw being the belt. Such a device for tightening a belt pulley was patented to J. J. Squire on May 4, 1875 (letters patent No. 162,867). His belt-pulley shaft is mounted upon bearings at either end. The bearings are placed upon stems which move vertically in fixed sleeves which support them and rest upon levers which are operated by a weight whereby the shaft is moved equally at all parts of its length to force the wheel firmly against the belt, and hold it taut. It is said that the Krumrein and Katz invention does not anticipate the device which is covered by the appellee's claim for the reason that the pressure upon the lever which carries the weight is not in the vertical line of the axes of the shaft wheel, but at one side thereof. In order to maintain a distinction based upon this difference, it is argued that the appellee's claim must be construed in the light of the device which was described in the drawings and specifications, and that by virtue of the concluding sentence of the claim, "substantially

as and for the purposes specified," there is imported into the claim. as one of its elements that the point of support of each bearing shall be in a vertical line passing therethrough, since such is the form so described and exhibited. It may be said in answer to this that there is nothing in the drawings or specifications to indicate that the inventor considered one of the elements of his claim to be the location of the points of support of the movable bearings in a vertical line beneath the same, and no intimation of such meaning is therein given to the public. On the contrary, it clearly appears that it was not his intention so to limit his claim. He believed himself to be the inventor of the combination which he specifically described in his claim. He said:

"I do not wish to be understood as limiting my invention to the precise devices which are herein shown and described. The upper band-wheel shaft may be made automatically adjustable by other devices, and, as this is the main characteristic of my invention, I claim it broadly."

There can be no doubt that an automatic adjustment such as that described in the German patent of Krumrein and Katz and that described in the Bugbee and Doane patent, if made subsequent to the appellee's invention, instead of prior thereto, would have been infringements of the latter, for they contain all the elements of the appellee's claim as the same is written. One who might have used the German device under those circumstances would not have been permitted to defend against infringement upon the ground that he had placed the point of support of the movable bearings at one side of, instead of in a vertical line beneath, the same. The object of the claim in a patent is to publish to the world the precise nature of the invention which the patentee seeks to protect. He cannot demand that there shall be imported into it an element which is not there distinctly stated or necessarily implied. What was there in the appellee's patent to apprise Wilkin, who invented the mill which was used by the appellant, that one of the elements of the appellee's claim was the location of the point of support in a vertical line beneath the movable bearings? Upon what theory is the appellee to be permitted to select one from the various features of his device as the same is presented in the drawings and specifications, and to say that that, and not some other, is an element of his combination? Either the claim is to be construed in accordance with the language in which it is expressed, unaided by the drawings and specifications, or it is to be circumscribed by the drawings and specifications. If the latter, then it is to be narrowed to the construction which is so set forth, and not to any one specified portion thereof. We are not at liberty to say that the location of the point of support of the movable bearings is a portion of the claim, and that the form of the levers and the construction of the fixed supports and their relation to one another are not. By examining the prior art, Wilkin could see what Krumrein and Katz had invented, and what the Bugbee and Doane device was. He was authorized to assume that, in view of the prior art, the appellee, if his device was indeed sufficiently novel to admit of protection as an invention, must be limited to the precise form in which his drawings and specifications exhibited it. We think that 42 C.C.A.-31

this is the most that can be claimed for the appellee's patent. It may be that the location of the points of support in a line vertically passing through the center of the bearings is an important feature in both the Prescott and the Wilkin patents, and that it materially contributes to the sensitiveness of the automatic adjustment of both. But, if it be true, there is nothing in the appellee's patent to show that the appellee was aware of that fact, or that he deemed it an element of his combination. Concerning the sources of the sensitiveness of his invention, the only information afforded us is that it results from the separation of the independent movable bearings from the fixed sleeves which support the same, and the consequent reduction of the weight of the parts which are sustained by the weighted lever. No suggestion of any other explanation or contributing cause is found in the evidence of the appellee or in that of his experts. As it was said in Fastener Co. v. Kraetzer, 150 U. S. 116, 14 Sup. Ct. 49. 37 L. Ed. 1021:

"If this feature be an advantage, as now claimed, it is strange that no allusion is made to it in the specifications."

In Railroad Co. v. Mellon, 104 U. S. 112, 118, 26 L. Ed. 642, the court said:

"In view, therefore, of the statute, the practice of the patent office, and the decisions of this court, we think that the scope of letters patent should be limited to the invention covered by the claim, and that, though the claim may be illustrated, it cannot be enlarged, by the language used in other parts of the specification.”

In White v. Dunbar, 119 U. S. 47, 52, 7 Sup. Ct. 74, 30 L. Ed. 305, Mr. Justice Bradley said:

"The claim is a statutory requirement, prescribed for the very purpose of making the patentee define precisely what his invention is; and it is unjust to the public, as well as an evasion of the law, to construe it in a manner different from the plain import of its terms."

In Manufacturing Co. v. Greenleaf, 117 U. S. 554, 558, 6 Sup. Ct. 848, 29 L. Ed. 953, the court said:

"We think this difference between the two locks does not give validity to the Rosner patent, for two reasons: First, because the shape and size of the keyhole is not mentioned in the claim of the Rosner patent as one of the elements of the combination. The scope of letters patent must be limited to the invention covered by the claim, and, while the claim may be illustrated, it cannot be enlarged, by language used in other parts of the specification."

But we think that, in any view of the language of the claim, the prior art was such as necessarily to limit the appellee to the specified form shown in his drawings and specifications. In the Doane and Bugbee patent the point of support of the movable bearings is in a line passing vertically therethrough, and the force of this fact is not affected by the unequal distribution of the strain upon the two ends of the band-wheel shaft. The fact that the device is so constructed that the greater portion of the weight is sustained upon one of the bearings, instead of being placed equally upon both, is unimportant. If it be admitted that the appellee's invention is to be protected in the precise form which is shown by his drawings and specifications, we think that the Wilkin mill, which was used by the appellant, suffi

ciently diverges therefrom to avoid infringement. The Wilkin mill, instead of being constructed with a single column in which the weight and the lever system are contained, has two distinct columns, widely separated, and carries the lever system and the weight below the columns. There are differences in the order and adjustment of the levers which are unimportant to be considered. Taking it altogether, we think it differs from the appellee's mill more than the latter differs from the devices of Doane and Bugbee and of Krumrein and Katz. The circuit court expressed doubt whether, in view of the prior art, the appellee's patent involved invention, but sustained the patent upon considerations suggested by the decision of the supreme court in the Barbed Wire Patent, 143 U. S. 275, 12 Sup. Ct. 443, 450, 36 L. Ed. 154, 161, where it was said that the courts incline to sustain a patent to the man who takes the final step in the invention, which turns failure into success. We think, however, that the rule of that decision should be applied in this case to the specific form which the appellee devised. The field of his invention was necessarily limited thereto by what had preceded him. The decree of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause remanded, with instructions to dismiss the bill.

(102 Fed. 508.)

FARIES MFG. CO. v. BROWN et al.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. June 6, 1900.)

No. 676.

PATENTS-INVENTION-WIRE FOR CHECK ROW CORN PLANTERS.

The Barlow patent, No. 328,452, for improvements in wire for check row corn planters, is not so clearly void on its face for lack of invention as to justify its being so adjudged on demurrer to a bill for infringement.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the Northern District of Illinois.

C. E. Pickard and L. L. Bond, for appellant.
Ephriam Banning, for appellees.

Before WOODS and GROSSCUP, Circuit Judges, and SEAMAN, District Judge.

PER CURIAM. This suit was brought to recover damages for alleged infringement of letters patent No. 328,452, issued on October 20, 1885, for "improvements in wire for check-row corn planters." The claims read as follows:

(1) An improved knot for check-row wires, formed by coiling the wire composing the knot back upon itself, substantially as described.

(2) The improved knot for check-row wires, composed of a primary coil and a reversely wound external coil, substantially as described.

(3) The herein-described improved knot and coupling for check-row wires, composed of the eye or loop, and the primary and reversed coils, the latter being formed by first wrapping the end of the wire around the body, and then back upon the coil so formed, substantially as described.

The circuit court sustained a demurrer to the bill, and dismissed the suit. This court is of opinion that the patent is not so clearly and indubitably void of invention as to justify a ruling to that effect upon demurrer. The decree is therefore reversed, with direction to overrule the demurrer.

(102 Fed. 508.)

RICHARDS v. MICHIGAN CENT. R. CO.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. June 7, 1900.)

No. 666.

PATENTS-VALIDITY-GRAIN TRANSFERRING APPARATUS.

The Richards patent, No. 308,095, for a grain-transferring apparatus, is void on its face.

In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the Northern District of Illinois.

Edgar Madden, for plaintiff in error.

George S. Payson, for defendant in error.

Before WOODS and GROSSCUP, Circuit Judges, and SEAMAN, District Judge.

PER CURIAM. This action was brought at law to recover damages for infringement of letters patent No. 308,095, issued on November 18, 1884, to Edward S. Richards. The circuit court, following the ruling of the supreme court in Richards v. Elevator Co., 158 U. S. 299, 15 Sup. Ct. 831, 39 L. Ed. 991, sustained a demurrer to the declaration on the ground that the patent is manifestly invalid upon its face, because "the combination is a pure aggregation." That view was reasserted in response to a petition for a rehearing. 159 U. S. 477, 16 Sup. Ct. 53, 40 L. Ed. 225. It is urged that the present declaration contains additional averments, but they do not, and, in the nature of things, could not, affect the proposition that the claims of the patent are for aggregations. The judgment below is affirmed.

(102 Fed. 509.)

HANIFEN v. PRICE et al.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. May 19, 1900.)

No. 126.

PATENTS-INVENTION-KNITTed Fabric,

The Bywater patent, No. 374,888, for an improved knitted fabric, having a smooth back, and a face made of mohair, worsted, or other yarn, looped, and being matted and curly, so as to give it the appearance of looped or Astrakhan cloth, is void for lack of patentable invention, in view of the prior art.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

The bill in equity in this case was brought in the circuit court for the Southern district of New York to restrain the alleged infringement of the sec

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »