On the question of novelty several prior patents are set up in the answer. Only one of them is introduced, No. 49,309, to Cyrus W. Saladee, August 8, 1865. In that there are two modifications: in one the buckle is not connected to the plate; in the other the connection between the buckle and the plate is rigid and without a joint. In the Meyer structure the buckle is attached to the plate by a joint. Five other prior patents were introduced by defendant. None of them are set up in the answer. They are as follows: No. 26,013, to Lucius O. Ohase, November 8, 1859; No. 39,217, to Frank Douglas, July 14, 1863; No. 44,554, to George Purple, October 4, 1864; No. 47,594, to Oyrus W. Saladee, May 2, 1865; and No. 47,765, to Eben. .is rigidly ezer Brown, May 16, 1865. In Chase the secured and not jointed. In Douglas the buckle frame is not connecteu with the loop by the bottom plate. In Purple tlia 1}uokle frame car" rying the tongue is not jointed, but the tongue has a rigid fastening. In Saladee, of May, 1865; the Meyer structure is notfound, nor iait found in Brown. Besides. the features above mentioned as to Chase, Douglas, and Purple, the structures in them would not suggest the structure of Meyer. As to the parol testimony in regard to prior structures by Moore and Davis and the defendant, it must be held that in view of the construction given to claims 2· and 8 of reissue No. 7,129, and of what the invention of Meyer has been de" fined to be, nothing is 'shown making out a satisfactory anticipation . of said claims. I think the suit is properly maintainable in the names of the plain· tiffs as surviving members of the f:i.rm composed of themseltes and Schuessler, and that a decree should be entered for the plaintiffs, fl.s to claims 2 and 3, for an account and a perpetual injunction, with costs.
STROBRIDGE V. LANDERS, FRARY
(Uzrcuit Court, D. Connectieut.
·November 10, 1881.)
PATENTS FOR iNVENTION-FORMAL CHANGES.
A change in stru.;:ture, merely formal, does not avoid an infringement.
SAME-REISSUE-NEW INVENTION-GRINDING MILLS.
Where the statement in the reissue is true, and is found in substance in the original, and no statement iR made in the. reissue of what the invention consists, but such statement in the original is omitted in the reissue, and no new matter
is introduced, yet, in view of the state of the art, if the inventor has produced a new and useful mill, differing substantially from any which preceded it, and evincing the exercise of inventive faculty, it is a new invention. Strobridge v. Li'(Ldsay, 2 FED. REP. 695, followed.
SAME-VoMBINATIO;N OF PARTS.
In the construction of. a grinding mill, where tile hopper and grinding shell formed in a single piece, and suspended in thEl' box by the upper part of the hopper or a flange thereon, did not" exist before, combined in a mill, such combination produces a new invention.
"Figure 1 is a vertical section of a coffee-mill embodying my invention. Figure 2 i!l an under view of, the cover, and figure.8 is a perspective view of the hopper. Like letters refer to like parts wherever they occur. My invention relates to the construction of coffee [and] or spice [millsiu such mannel that the hopper is encWlled in the box, and may be closed,in turn by a sliding gate or cover, whereby a compact and neat mill is obtained.] g1'inders; and it consists in suspendt1?fl the;hoppe'r by means. ofthe top of the bOiV; and securing it in position by means of which pass tMough the cover and through lugs, or a projecting flange npon the hopper, whereby a covered hopper is obtained, and the construction and attachment of the devices .nmplifled; also, in providing the covered hopper with a sUdin.,! or movable gate, centered with the shank of the grinding nut, and sliding upon the periphery or flange of the hopper. whereby hinges, 8p1'ings. or catches are dispensed with, and slides aside, leaving unobstructed opening for the admission of thea1'ticle to be ground, and also" in promding the hopper with projections or points which bite into the cover of the box and prevent the sUpping or turning of the hopper. in connection with a cover projecting so as to rest upon the top of the box, and bind upon the upper edge of the hopper.. * * A indicates the box with its drawer, B, of any suitable construction. The top, C, of the box is cut away, [so that] for the admission of the hopper [may be suspended therein1 which I introduce from above, sUspending it by means of a projecting flange or lugs on the [hopper.1 hopper, end to [To] facilitate the suspension of the hopper, I preferably bevel the opening in top. C, to correspond with the curve of the hopper as shown at [c.] c, which [This1 also will diminish the liability of the splitting of the wood when the screws which secure the cover are [introduced.] introduced, (when a cover is used afU!,sefYUred, as shown,) D represents the hopper or grinding shell. provided with a flange or
lugs, d, by which it is suspended [in] upon the top, a, of the box, [A. The hopper is fastened down, and also prevented from turning, by the screws, g.l A, and through which pass the screws, g, which hold the hopper down and prevent it from, turning. The hopper has the usual grinding face, d, and a series of projections or points, e, which I provide for the purpose of taking hold upon the bevelled edge, c, of .the top, C, to aAsist in preventing any movement of the hopper. These points, if sufficiently numerous, will of themselves prevent a change of position of the [hopper, so that screws may be omitted. This will be found the cheapest and most convenient way of suspending the] hopper, E, is the cover, having a central opening for the passage of the shank of the grinding Dut, and a sunken or recessed rim for the accommodation,of the lugs, d, or the flange of the hopper, so that the lower edge of thecover rests evenly upon the top, C, and at the same time binds upon the hopper. This cover, E, is provided with a sliding gate or door, F, which is pierced, as at f, for the passage 'Of, or made to rest against, the shank of the grinding nut, upon which it turns or bears, said gate, F, resting, by its lower edge, upon the upper edge of the hopper, and sliding or moving within or without the cover, E, so as to be out of the way when the opening in ,the cover is unclosed. G represents the grinding nut. having a tapering shank, H, which passes through the cover, projecting portion of gate, F, and the crank, and is secured above by the uaual tightening nut, I. The devices are put together 8S'follows:The cover and· gate are placed upon the hopper, the shank of the gl'inding nut passed through the hopper, cover, and cra'uk, and secured by the tightening nut; the lugs or' screw openings in the flange of the hopper are made to register with those in the cover, after which the operative parts are dropped into the opening in the top of the box, and screwed by a. single set ohcrews which pass through the cover and lugs or flange of the hopper. The projecting points on the outside of the hopper will bite into the top of the box, and. as the cover binds upon the upper' edge of the hopper, these will of themselves, if sufficiently numerous, besufIicient to prevent any movement of the hopper, so that, if desired, the screws need not pass through the flange of the hopper. The hopper may be suspended as shown, and the <lover replaced by a bridge to support the shank of the grinding nut. The grinding shell or hopper and the cover may be secured by a separate set of screws. The lower part of the grinding shell may be formed with lugs or projections, to guide and steady the grinding nut. Among tIle advantages of my invention are the simplicity of construction, and the readiness with which the several parts and the box may be adjusted or Bat up, whereby time and labor are saved and a serviceable article produced."
Reading in the foregoing what is outside of brackets t including what is in italics, and omitting what is ins,ide of brackets, gives the textoftbe original specification. There are eight claims in No 7,583. Only claim 1 is involved in this suit. It is as follows:
.. (I) A coffee or similar mm, having a detachable hopper an.d grinding shell, formed in a single piece, and suspended within the box by the upper part of the hopper, or a flange thereon, SUbstantially as and for the purpose specified."
STROBRIDGE .". LANDERS.
The original patent had four claims, as follows:
"(1) The hopper and grinding shell, D, provided with points or proj&r.tions,
e, on its outer surface, in combination with cover, E, projecting so as to rest
npon the top of the box and bind upon the upper edge of the hopper, substantially as and for the purpose specified. (2) In coffee or spice mills, the combination of box, A, having a top, C, with the hopper, D, suspended within the box by means of lugs or projections, which rest upon or take into top, C, and a cover, substantially as specified. (3) The combination of the hopper and grinding shell, D, grinding nut, G, having shank, H, and cover, E, having a sliding gate or door, F, substantially as and for the purpose specified. (4) The combination of cover, E, and grinding shell or bopper, D, the latter provided with lugs, or a flange, so that the two parts may be secured to the box by a single set of screws, substantially as specified."
So far as can be discerned in the drawings or the ori¢nal and the reissue, the hopper and the grinding shell are represented as a single piece, without any indication of ever having been in two pieces. It is not stated in the reissue that they are cast in one piece. The tex.t says that D is the hopper or grinding shell, and that it has the usual grinding face, d'. That grinding face is shown in the drawings as extending down from the lower part· of the hopper part proper, and as having the grinding nut revolving within it. The grinding face is the inner face of the grinding shell. There is nothing else on the point till we come to claim 1, where it is said that the "hopper and grinding shell" are "formed in a single piece." The elements which appear to be necessary in claim 1 are:
(1) A mill in the form of a box; (2)· a hopper and grinding shell formed in a single piece; (3) the combined hopper and grinding shell detachable; (4) such hopper and grinding shell suspended in the box by the uppe,rpart of the hopper, or a ftange thereon; (5) an arrangement of these featUl'es substantially as and for the purpose specified.
The defendant's structure, which is claimed to infringe claim 1 of the reissue, is constructed in accordance with the description and drawings of a patent granted to Rodolphns L. Webb, No. 204,865, June 11, 1878, so far as anything involved in this case is concerned. That patent shows a box mill with a cast-metal top projecting as a lateral flange horiy.ontally from the top edge of the hopper on all four sides, and extending outwardly beyond the tops of the sides. The top is of one piece with the hopper proper, and the latter is of one .piece with the grinding shell, as shown in the drawings; and this is the construction in the article put in evidence as infringing. The hopper and. Rrinding shell are sunk in the box, 80 that there are covers which,when closed, rest on' the upper face of the metal top. The patent: states that the
grinding shell may be cast as a part of the hopper, or may be attached thereto. The patent claims merely an arrangement for adjusting the grinding nut up and down, so as to make it run nearer to or further from the grinding sbell, and thus vary the quality of the grinding. This arrangement does not appear to be embodied in the mills produced aJ;ld put in evidence as specimens of those made by the defendant. The defendant's article is a mill in the form of a box. It has a hopper and a grinding shell formed in a single piece, they being cast in one piece. The combined hopper and grinding shell and top are detachable from the box by unscrewing screws which go through the sides of the box into lugs depending on the inside of the box from the under side of the top. The hopper and the grinding shell, through their connection with the metal top, are suspended in the box. Every point of advantage resulting from the combination of the features in claim 1 of No. 7,583 exists in the defendant's article. Some question is made as to what :is meant by the word "deta.chable" in claim 1. It is not used in the descriptive part of thespecification.· But screws are shown .and described :which go through the lugs or flange on the hopper and into the wood of the box on top, and thus fasten the hopper. to the box. Of course these are wood screws, and removable at will; and so the hopper and shell are detachable. The defendant's hopper and shell and top are detachable in the same way, being attached in the same way·. The defendant urges that its structure does not infringe, because the hopper ililnot detachable from the top of the. bo;x:. All that the defendant has done sides of the is to enlarge the size of the flange. On the hopper. box support the top of the box. When the flange is smaller than the top, it hangs in the top. When it is so large as to itself form a top and overlap the sides, the sides support the that is, the flange top, the hopper, and the grinding shell. The change is merely formal, and does not avoid infringement. The flange on the hopper may be graduadlyenlarged, and'the top of the box be gradually .cut away, until .the wood of the top is allgone,aIld the ftangereplaces it, without in any manner affecting the principle of the Strol;Jridge inventions embodied in claim 1.. Thjs .is all that the..defendant has done. The answer sets up that the reissue is not for the same tionas that described in the original, and that the reissue contains new matter· not found, suggested,ror described in the original-This objection is not tenable. The statement in the reissue of that to ;which the invention relates is true, and is found, in substance, ill the original. There is no statement in the reissue of what the in ven·
STROBRIDGE V. LANDERS.
tion consists in. The statement in the original as to what the invention consists in, is omitted in the reissue. It was narrower than the real invention. The drawings of the reissue and the original are the samb. There is no new matter introduced into the reissue. The reissue truly describes the article and its parts. To say that the hopper is suspended in the bJx, when the original says thatit is suspended from the top of the box, is not new matter, within the meaning of section 4916 of the Revised Statutes. The answer also sets up that in view of the previous state of the art, as shown in various patents set forth in the answer, the reissue shows no novelty, and discloses no patentable subject of inventionl and that the reissue is invalid for want of patentable quality. This reissued patent was adjudicated upon in the suit.of Strobridge v. Lindsay, 2 FED. REP. 692, in the circuit court for the western district of Pennsylvania, by Judge Acheson.. The defendant's mill in that case was of the same construction as the mill of the defendant in this case. The defences there insisted on were non-infringement and'w'8.nt of patentable invention. The mill was held to infringee1aim 1 of the reissue. The question of the extension of the flange on tho hoppel; was fully considered. Everything that is introduced into.this:case by the dtlfendant ·on.the question of novelty and patentability was in the Lindsay Case, except a mill called "Domestic Coffee-M;ill." In this the hopper is elevated, and not sunk in the box. There is a castmetal cover, covering the box and forming its top. The hopper is not of one piece with the cover, but rests on it, and is secured: to it by rivets. The grinding shell is loose, and has a flange at i-tsupper edge, and is dropped into a depression surrounding the central hole in the cover, and has the hopper above it.. Lugs on it"fitting into corresponding recesses in the cover, prevent it from turriing. .Th6 grinding shell is supported against lateral strain or displacement by the cover. This structure has not a hopper suspended ·in .the box, nor a grinding shell and hopper formed ina single piece, and.neither quesmeets claim 1 nor shows the defendant's tion of novelty and patentability was .fully considered :by Judge Acheson, especially in regard to the French mill; and the elevatedihopper mill. Box' coffee-mills, ensted, such as the elevated . hopper mill, the Livingston & Adams mill, and. the Brown mill, in which the hopper and the grinding shell were formed in one. and the same piece; and. qox coffee-mills existed, such as the French mill, the Kurtz mill, and the Clark mill, in which the hopper was suspended in the box; and in the Domestic coffee-mill the metal top which carricdt.he.
hopper and the grinding shell was attached to the box by wood screwS; but no coffee-mill existed combining all the features embodied in claim 10f No. 7,583. It was, however, urged, in the Lindsay Suit, that it did not, in view of the prior structures, require invention to pass to a structure with the combined features of claim 1 of No. 7,583. Judge Acheson held that it did. The entire record in the Lindsay Suit is in evidence in this suit. There is nothing new in this suit as to the matters considered and passed upon in the other suit, in regard to patentability and novelty, and the Domestic coffeemill presents no features in regard to forming the hopper and grinding shell in a single piece, and in regard to a hopper suspended in the box, which was not presented by structures among those which were before Judge Acheson. Under these oiroumstances, it would be proper, as it is usual, to follow the former decision on final hearing in another cirouit oourt. But, irrespective of this, I entirely ooncur in the views of Judge Aoheson. ' It is strongly urged that claim 1 of No. 7,583 oannot be sustained, beoauso the old devioes aggregated in it do not, by their combination, produce a novel result which is the fruit of the combination. It is a sufficient answer to this view to say that a hopper and grinding shell formed in a. single piece, and suspended in the box by the upper part of the hopper or a flange thereon, did not exist before, combined in a mill. The evidence shows that the suspension in the box requires, in order to dispense with the yoke or bridge which is below the grinding shell in the French mill, that the grinding shell and the hopper should be formed in a single piece, because when the hopper is sunken the grinding shell no longer has the lateral support of the box cover. Hence, the combination of those features do produce a novel result as the fruit of the combination. If that oombination had existed before, the question whether adding to that the feature of detachability made another patentable combination might arise. But it does not arise now. The defendant, down to 1874, was not making a mill with a sunken hopper. In that year Webb, who was in its employ, having before him the French mill and a mill Diade by the Charles Parker Company in accordance with the Strobridge patent, entered into the manufacture of the infringing mill. It desired to make a mill with a. sunken hopper which should be a. cheaper mill than the French mill. It substantially copied the Charles Parker mill, merely extending the flange of the hopper. It formed the hopper and the grinding shell in one piece, and got rid of the lower supporting yoke of the ]'rench mill. In the Strobridge mill the only lateral support
MALLORY 1dANUF'G CO./). MARKS.
of the grinding shell is the hopper. Therefore, there must be a strong, unyielding union between the grinding shell and the hopper. Where the hopper is elevated, the grinding shell is sustained laterally against the strain of grinding by the top of the box. The advantages thus resulting from Strobridge's arrangement have been availed of by the defendant by the use of what is covered by claim 1 of No. 7,583. There must be a decree for the plaintiff for an account of profits and damages, and a perpetual injunction, with costs.
MANUF'G Co. v. MARKS and others.
(Circuie Court,8. D. New York.
A patent for an improvement in hats, where the claim is for a combination of the brim with a drooping spring hoop in the front and rear and elevated sides, and the means of producing such droop and elevation-the hoop being bent by twisting wire, until the required bend is obtained_in connection.with . the brim of the hat made of flexible material, is infringed by a similar device. 2. B..um-NoT ANTICIPATED BY PRIOR I:NVJllNTrONS. The existence before of straight, untwisted wires in hat brIms, made of a ible fabric, does not anticipate the patent; it requiring expeiiment llnd invention to pass from them to the arrangement of the patent, although previously known that giving a permanent twist to a resilient w;re would pertnanently alter its longitudinal set. . .
Eugene 'l'readwell, for plaintiff. Betts, Atterburg' et Betts, for defendants. BLATCHFORD, C. J. This suit is brought on letters patent No. 74,392, granted February 11, 1868, to George Mallory, for an "hnprovement in hats." The specification says: .. Figure 1 represents a side view of a hat constructed according to my invention; figure 2 represents a perspective view of one of the springs of the same; figure 3 represents a top view of the hat; figure 4 represents an edge view of one of the springs of the same; and figure 5 represents a cross section of the hoop enlarged. The object of my invention is to improve hats made from flexible fabrics, such as cloth; llJ1d the tnvention consists of the combination of the brim of the hat with a drooping spring,boop, by I mean a spring hoop bent or twisted in such mannel' as to iIppart a droop to the front and rear of the brim. and an elevation to the sides thereof. 'The hat represented in the accompanying drawings embodies my invention when the hoop is formed of concavo-convex' wire, the brim being strained andil'hapM by a spring-hoop, which is both concavo-convex and tWisted, 80 as to give the