of at one side. The plaintiff placed his diaphragm at one side, in order to obtain free access to his straight uptake and his puppet valves, for convenient cleansing and sounding. The defendant's pump, invented by Mr. Edson, has, so far as I can judge, several improvements of construction over the Loud pump; and the described advantages of the Loud pump are obtained in a somewhat different way. There is a straight uptake, with large accessible puppet valves, removable by hand; but the diaphragm is placed over the uptake, and is made in an annular form, so that access to the uptake is through the open top of the diaphragm. Considering the state of the art, I do not think the plaintiff should be limited to a diaphragm situated at one side of his uptake. TlJ,e essence of his improvement was that the chamber and valves should be so arranged ina diaphragm pump that they could be reached and the valves be removed by hand, for the purposes specified, and this imprQvement the defendant has retained, whatever else he may have added. Deoree for the oomplainant.
LAMB v. HAMBLEN and others.
(Ce'rcuit Court, D. Ma.ssachusettB. ItIay 10,1882.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-PRIOR CONCEPTION-NOT TO INVALIDATE PATENT.
Where a person conceives an invention and presents specimens of his device made by hand, but he does not teach the world how to make it in his specifications, and another person invents a machine for the purpose of manufacturing the article, and obtains a patent therefor, such patent is valid for the new article, and subject to infringement.
.John A. Loring and Wm. H. Drury, for complainant. Benj. F. Thurston. Samuel A. Duncan, and Robert H. Duncan, for
defendants. LOWELL, C. J. This suit is brought upon patent No. 124,011, issued to David A. Ritchie, for a pipe or tube mll.de by spirally winding a strip of metal and uniting its edges by a grooved or flanged seam or joint substantially as described. It is Root v. Lamb,7 FED. REP. 222, with the parties reversed, and the evidence is substantially what it was in that case. Ritchie was the first to introduce a pipe made of sheet metal with a spirally-wound folded seam; and the pipe
was a very valuable improvement upon what was before known to the trade. Root in his earlier patent described what a person skilled in the art would understand to be a welded tube, or at any rate a tube of plate metal,and though Root's description is perhaps broad enough to describe Ritchie's pipe, it does not show the world how to make it; and Root himself could not make it for the market until he had invented a machine for the purpose after the date of Ritchie's patent. It is proved 'by the defendants' witnesses, as well as by those called by the complainant, that the mere conception of a spirally-wound tube would be valueless, and that such an article could not be made for any useful purpose by hand. Therefore, if it be true that some specimens of tubing had been made by hand before the date of Ritchie's invention, the patent would not be thereby avoided. No doubt his claim covers a pipe made by hand, but as such pipe never has been, nor will be, so made for the trade, a piece of pipe so fashioned as a curiosity, before his time, ought not to destroy his title. I do not find, however, that any such pipe, or anything which anticipates his invention, was made. Smith's specimens of pipe with folded seams, if they were made, were made some months after Ritchie's invention was complete. Root's piece of pipe, Exhibit No. 3, in this case, No. 10 in the former case, is useful as corroborating Root's testimony, and proving th'a.t he had conceived the idea of a. Ritchie pipe, and intended to describe it in his patent; but, in itself, it is an experimental pipe, merely. Having held, in the former case, that whatever Root's conception may have been he did not teach the world how to make the Ritchie pipe, the question for me now is, did Ritchie succeed better in his specification? There is no doubt that Ritchie invented and described a. machine for making this pipe; but the specification of his patent for the machine was filed some months after the grant of the patent now in suit. If they had been contemporaneous, I should not have had any doubt that he' might patent his new product as well as his new machine. Let us see how he teaches the art in his earlier patent, now in suit. To enable others skilled in the art to understand and use' his invention he describes it thus:
II In the said drawing. A. is a flat strip of sheet metal of the requfredwidth. which, as it is fed th.rough a machine, (to form the subject of a future application.)' is spirally wound around a mandrel or ·former: one edge of the strip being turned down to form a flange or tongue, a, while the other edge is turned
np rlnr1 provided with a groove or channel, b, (see figures 1 and 5,) the tongue heing directed and laid into the groove, as seen in figure 3. A pressure-roller, or other device, now bears on the outside of the raised joint thus produced, whereby it is flattened down, the joint being formed of four thicknesses of metal."
In this description the patentee undertakes to state briefly the characteristics of a machine which he says he has invented and intends to patent. He had invented such a machine, and did afterwards patent it. Now, whether this general description of his machine was sufficient to enable others to make his pipe is a question for those skilled in the art; and there is not a word in the record, so far as I know, and there is certainly none in the briefs or arguments on either side, to throw the slightest doubt upon the sufficiency of this description; and, in the complainant's case, there is affirmative evidence that it is sufficient, and its sufficiency was conceded in the argument for the defendants. I therefore decide that the patent of Ritchie for the new article is valid. Of the infringement there is no question. Decree for the complainant.
Wircuit Uourt, D. Massachusetts.
An article produced by a process which was previously known, but used for . a somewhat different purpose and }vith different results, is patel1table.
·Where the question of anticipation is raised, and three different and variant decisions were shown and an interference declared, and the decision of the district court was pending on appeal to the circuit court, this cOllrt will retain the bill until the trial of the former suit, and decision upon the· question is rendered.
In Equity. Oausten Browne, for complainant. Stillman B. Allen and Willis B. Allen, for defendant. Before LOWELL, U. J., and NELSON, D. J. LOWELL,O.J.. The piaintiff applied for a patent, June 24,1875, which wa.s granted Septembe;r 7, 1875, No. 167,455, for a new cle of manufa.cture, "a rubber ha.yipg,