OBOSS tI. MAOltINNOK.
(Oircuit Oourt, 8. D. New York. March 8,1882.)
P,ATENTl' FOR INVENTION-FOUNTAIN PF..NB-VALIDITY 011'.
Letters patent No. 199,621, gl"linted Alonzo T. Cross for an "Improvement in fountain pens," the prinCipal distinctive feature of which is a spring workIng between the vibrating pin and the air-tube, are not void for want of novelty, and are infringed by a pen having the spring waide instead of outside the air tube.
Edwin H. Brown, for plaintiff. Eu.gene N. Eliot, for defendant. WHEELER, D. J. The orator has a patent, numbered for an improvement in fountain pens, the principal distinctive feature of which is a spring working between the vibrating writing pin and the air-tube, to project the pi,n and restrain the flow of ink when the pen pin and is not in use, and yield to the pressure on the point of make room for the flow of ink when the pen is in use. The first claim, which is the one in controversy, is of the vibrating pin a.nd spring combined with the air-tube, case of the pen, and ink-tube. The defences to this suit upon the patent are want of novelty in the Fountain pens with airinvention patented and tubes, vibrating points, and other necessary points were well known at the time of the plaintiff's invention, but none of them had his pre· cise arrangement of a vibrating point worked by a spring connected with an air-tube, as he arranged them. The defendant, Mackinnon, had a patent for one substantially like the plaintiff's, except that the vibrating point was actuated by a weight instead of by a spring; in others there were springs, but which were not connected, and did not operate like the plaintiff's. One ground of want of novelty presented and urged is the equiv. alencyof the weight in Mackinnon's patent to the spring in the plain. tiff's. That they are equivalent in some operations is well established and known, but the question on this part of the case is whether they are equivalent in producing the desired result here. The efficiency of the weight is affected by its necessary confinement in a small working place, and by the necessary inclination of the pen from a perpendicular both when in and out of use. Something to act more quickly in the direction of the point of the pen, without regard to its perpendicularity, was necessary, and this was found in the spring,
-Reported by 8. Nelson White, Esq., of the New York bar.
which in this operation was more than the equivalent of the weight. Another ground of lack tlf patentable novelty is an alleged want of working together of the parts mentioned as combined in this claim. This position rests chiefly upon the fact that the air-tube, as such, spring; that it is a mere support to the has notlling to do with spring, and'for that purpose might as well be a solid rod. It is a fact that the air in the tube, and, the tubular form of that part,' have 'nothing whatever to do with the operation of the springs; but the patent does not rest upon the idea that they do. The pressure of the air-tube was necessary in the pen, and the merit of the invention consists in making the further use of this necessary part to sustain the spring where it is wanted. It does combine with the spring for this' purpose, and bythig invention is made to do two things iIlstefid of one. The spring could be attached to something else, but thatwouldmake'a different pen, and probably not so good a one. The defence of non-infringement rests upon the fact that the defendant had titespringinside the instead of, outside. This iria.y 'be an improvement upon the plaintiff's mode of attaching the spring to the tubes, but if it is it is none the less a use of his arrangement. He makes use of the same parts, for the same purpose, hi substantially the same way. Let there be a decree for the plaintiff according to the prayer of the bill.
TUE EDWIN POST.
(District Court, 11. Delaware.
VESSEL-APPARATUS AND APPLIANCES-TACKLE.
Special apparatus or appliances on board of a vessel engaged in a particular avocation, as whaling or wrecking, which are indispensable to the proper prosecution of such business, and not constituting in any sense a portion of the cargo, are component parts of the tackle, apparel, and furniture of such vessel, and liable as such for scamen's wages and contracts for supplies entered into in good faith with the master.
2. SAME-SUBJECT TO ATTACHMENT.
The of sueh apparatus or material, under the authority of the writ against such vessel, her tackle, apparel, and furniture, is good.
3. 8AME-SEPARATE OWNERSHIP.
The fact that the ownership of the vessel and of such apparatus is separate will not be sufficient to exempt such apparatus from liability if in fact it was on board the vessel by the consent of its owners at the time of such seamen's shipment, or supplies furnished in good faith, and thus furnished an inducement for the service in the one case and the credit in the other.