the tvpe-wnpels by being moved upward when it is dPsired to print by an independent electro-magnet. Thus, in the Calahan instrument. two type-wheels, printing on the same strip of papel', and three electro-magnets, are used, each onp. of which is operative from the central station by the appropriate device, which senf]s pulsations of electricity through the wires which connect the central station WJth the receiVing instrument or instrulUents."
The third claim is £,)1' the combination of six elements: the typewheel upon which are figures; the type-wheel upon which are letters; the electro-magnet operating the letter-wheel; the electro-magnet operating the number-wheel; the electro-magnet operating the impression-roller, so that impressions may be taken from either wheel; and the impression-roller, The testimony for the plaintiff is to the effect that instruments made under the Wiley patent, No. 227,808, contain the invention specified in this claim. One of the two experts who were introduced by the defendant said nothing in regard to the Calahan patent or its infringement. The other did not deny infringement, but thought that the Theiler (Fronch) and the Jolll1son (English) patent, which was also for the Theiler invention, and which invention antedated Calahan's, contained the elements of his third claim: but the witness also testified that the Theiler patent does "not contain two independently moving typewheels, each ad,'anced by a magnet, independent of the magnet advancing the other type-whee!." TlJe Theiler patont has but one electro-mHgnet, which moves and stops both type-wheels simultaneously, and neither wbeel can be moved independently of the other. The connsel for the defendant argued earnestly that there was no infrmgement, hecanse, he insisted, t he function of the magnets, f and i, in the Calahan ratent, is entirely positive, i. e., to act directly upon and ll10ve a type-Wheel without extraneous aid; while the function of the rlefenrll1nt's magnets is entirely negative, i. e., to prevent and regulate continuous extraneous motion imparted to the type-wheel by clot.:k·wfU'k ; anrl that these ll1lgnets were not, at the date of the Calahan patent, knowll to be proper substi utes for his magnets, and are not" therefore, eqnivallDts therefor; and fnrthermore, that the Wiley macb.:ne is an impro\'eml nt upon the Theiler machine, but in a different directioll from the Calahan invention. It is ohviotls that tblE'e various suggestions involve questions of fact, and tilat the defelJ(lant has no testimouy, otner than that appearing upon the face of the various patents and iile-wrappers, upon "Which to support the thl ory of his coull,.;el. These questious the pateuts alone will not settle. A court cannot. deem itself called upon to examine elab Irate theo!;ies upon abstruse scientific suhjects, when the theories denenrl upl'n ql1estions of fact, in regrorJ to which there is an ahsence (If testim0ny. In this case, it is to be noticed that the defcllllaut'li t\\O experts have virtually declined to adJpt his theory.
STOCK TELEGRAPH CO. V. WILEY.
The conclusion is that infringement of the Calahan patent has not been disproved, and that the novelty of the third claim has not been successfully attacked. The nature of the Van Hoevenbergh invention is stated in his specification as follows:
"Printing have before been ma(le with two type-wheels in line with each other, but revolvell independently, so that one can be operative while the other remains quiescento In machines of this character it is usual to stop one type-Wheel when at the nonius or dash point, while the other is made lise of; but sumetimes a lett!'r will be missed and the type-wheel will not properly print when set "My invention is malle to set the type-Wheels in their correct positions and consists in conne,oting latches or catches that are so positioned and operated that the type-Wheel that is moved hy the step-by-step motion keeps turning the type-wheel that would otherwise be qniescent until it is set, or arrives at the nonius or dash point. By this conslrnetion it becomes impossible for either type-wheel to remain out of unison while the other is being operated, because a movement given to either one brings the other to its proper place and there leaves it."
The single claim of the patent is·
"The method herein specitied of causing one type-wheel to set the adjacent typp-wheel by moving it around to the designated point, anu there leal"ing the same, suustantially as set forth."
As the mechanism of neither the 'Van Hoevenbergh nor the Wiley inventions can be understood by quotations from the patents, without an inspection of the drawings, and as the respect·ive devices are described quite clearly and with accuracy in the testimony of the respective experts, I shall make use of their descriptions and omit the language of the specifications. :Mr. Brevoort says:
.. Van IIoeve!llJergh accompli,;hes this result [that of bringing the wheel that is not in use into unison, by the operation of the wheel that is being uspd to obtain impressions from] by having upon e<tch wheel a prawl alld arms, so arranged that the wheel which was not in unison will ue moveu around by the wheel which is being operated. allll whieh is in unison, by the arm of one wheel interIm'king wllh the arlll of the adjacent wheel; and these arms will remain interlor'ked, and the two wheels will move together until the wheel which was out of unison has been moved into the correct position, when. by one of two stationary arms, the two wheels will eease to interlock with one another, and the wheel which was misplaCed will be left in the propeloand known position to be st:lrted into opemtion, where it will remain, never mind huw long the adjaccnt wheel may be operated."
Mr. Hicks describes the mechanism of the Wiley device as follows: It contains"Two whpels. sirle by sioe, anrl arranged to print indepenrlently. to he moved indepenrlently, to stand normally at the dash puint when not in motion, but the type-wheels are so inuependent that ncither is affected by the other's motion while either of them is in motion. " * * The two type-whpels * * * are mounted on two shafts in line with each other. as in the Van Huevenbergh patent, but with a bearing between them which would prevent
any mechanism of one from driving the other." * * * Each sllaft is supplied with gears and a train of wheels, so that it is revolved by a weight or spring, after the manner of clock-work. Each shaft also is provided with an escapement wheel, b, into which an escapement engages, and the escapement is attached to the armature of a magnet, so that when the armature is attracted by the magnet one tooth of the escapement is let go, and when the attraction ceases another tooth is let go, thus moving the type-wheel by the clock-work whenever the magnet permits such motion. At each motion of the escapement aletter is presented to the paper for printing, excepting when the dash-point is above the paper. * * * Upon each shaft is asmall circular disk attached to and moving with the shaft, and in the circumferenee of said disk is an insulating plug, extending a short distance on the circumference of the nisk. The remaining portion of the disk is made of conducting material suitable for carrying a current of electricity, and the shaft is of a shnby the operation of the escapement by means of the magilar material. net, and a current of electricity thrown through its wire, the type-wheel is ' carried around to the dash point and stands there in its normal position. Thjs is true of both wheels. If, however, by any accident the type-wheel should stanl[ in an incorrect position when the opposite wheel begins to move, a current of electricity is caused to still continue to How th,rough a portion of the, wire to th8 magnet which operates the incorrect wheel, and so sain wheel coli"" tinues to move towards its correct position nntil it arrives at that position, when the current ceases to tlow and the magnet stops mlJving an(I the wheel stands still. The means for shifting the current of electricity, or preventing it from passing to the magnet continuously, is the hlsula;l;erl plug which I have referred to on the disk of the wheel, which, C()l11ing the point' of contact between the wire which carries a current norllully t111'Ollgh the disk thereby stops the tlOIV of electricity." The plaintiff insists-First, that the Van Hoevonbergh patent is for" a_process, and that, thoreforo, the causing ono type-wheel, while it ,,"as being operatoc1 by a step-by-step movement, to set the adjacent· type-wheel by moving it around by a step-by-step movement to the designated point, and there leaving the same, by whatever mechanism the process is used, is an infringement; and, secondly, that if the patent is not for a process, tlle defendant infringes by substituting for the mechanical means of Van Hoevenbergh the same mode of operation between the type-wheels by means of electricity. . I think that the question whether the patent is or is not for a p 0cess is immaterial, in ,iew of the question whether the defendant does cause one type-wheel, by its step-bv-step movement, to move the incorrect type-wheel around step by to the designated or unison point and there lea,e it. The theory of the plaintiff is that the mo- " tion of the unison-wheel causes a current to flow through the magnet of the non-unison-wheel, and that the latter wheel is by the cnrrent advanced and continued in motion, and so the step-by-step movement of the unison-wheel is transmitted to the non-unison-wheel, until tha latter "has reached the unison or dash point, when it will be arrested by a mechanism disconnecting the motion of itsarma-: tnre from the motion of the armature of the unison-wheel." The theory' of the defend;lllt is that. the motion" of the correct. wheel .has noihing. to do. . . . . . the· incorxect · wheel : . dash- ", with setting at the : J ".. . . . _
point, "and its shaft has nothing j"do in producing said result, except to furnish part of an electric circuit;" and further, that "each wheel has its own appliances for stopping the current to its magnet without aid from the other wheel, or its shaft, or its disk, excepting a means of electrical communication." Tht correctness of the first part of this proposition is criticised by the plaintiff, and it is true, and is admitted by the defendant to be true, that the unison-wheel must move one step before it makes a complete electrical circuit with the non-unison-wheel and starts it. The circuit is not completed when the unison-wheel is at rest at the unison-point. The starting of the non-unison-wheel in consequence of the completion of the circuit is a different thing from setting the wheel at it" dash-point, because it is not the motion of the unisonwheel which keeps up a continuous motion in the non-unison-wheel. The effect of one movement of the unison-wheel is to:nake a circuit, and by the power of the electrical current th6 other wheel is started; and eo it may, in a certain sense, be proper to say that the movement of the unison-wheel is transmitted to the other wheel, but the motion of the unison-wheel does not keep the other wheel in motion. It is kept in motion because its magnet is continuously energized, and if the unison-wheel is stopped by the hand the electrical current is not affected, but continues, and the other wheel is carried to its unison-point. In the Wiley machine the electrical current which operates, or is to operate, the unison-wheel is divided, and as soon asanelectrica.l connection is formed by one movement of the unison-wheel and both magnets are energized, both type wheels are moved one step, and are continuously simultaneously moved, until the insulated paino in the disk of the non-unison-wheel comes under the spring, when. the magnet which moves that wheel is out of circuit, and that wheel stops and the motion of the other wheel continues. The electrical circuit which is formed with the shafts of the non-unison-wheel by the aid of one motion of the unison-wheel and of its shaft, is broken by means of the disconnecting apparatus, which depends upon the non-unison-wheel. . In my opinion, this mode of operation or method differs materially from one which consists in causing the type-wheel that is being moved to keep. turning the other type-wheel to a designated point, and there leaving the same, although by a skillful use of woi-ds the modes may be said tG be the same. There is no irifringement of the Van Hoevenbergh patent. . Let there be a decree for an injunction against the infringement of the third claim of the Calahan patent. and for an accounting, and dismissing the bill so far forth as the Yan Hoevenbergh patent is concerDed.
THE CHARLES PARKER CO.
(Ui1'cuit Court, D. Connecticut.
July 17, 1883.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-IN.JUNCTION PffiNOENTE LITE-INFllTNGE'IE:!"T.
An injunction peitdente lit!!, to restrain a defendant from the infringement of a pateni w II not be granted wh"n the vUliJity of sueh patent has never Geen judicially determined and is in duuut. The questions in regard to the validity of tne pjall1tiiI's patent, and which prevent a prcl,minary injunction, stated.
:Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Cllas. E. Mitchell and O. fl. Pl ttt, for plaintiff. Chas. n. Ingersoll, [or defendant. . SHIP3IAN, J. Tilis is It motion for a preliminary i:nf'unction to restrain the defendant from the infringement, pendente lite, of reissued letters patent, dated April 20. 1877, to the plaintiff, as assignee of John A. Evarts, for an imprvvem3nt in extension lamp fixtures. The original patent was dated October 31, 1876. 'fhe invention related to an improvement in the class of lamp fixtures which is so constructed that the lamp and shade, when suspended, can be drawn down together and will rest at (hfforent elevations. In the original "in a weighted ring, specification the invention was said to which forms su b:ltantially a crown for the shade when the two are together stlspended hyone end of chains or cords over pulleys from the support above, combined with a shade-holder attached to the sejon.l end of the said chains or COl'l13, and the lamp attached to the said shade-holder." 'file claim in the original patent was as follows:
.. The comhination of the B. the shalle-ring, A, to which the lamp and shade are attached; the said shade-ring and weight-ring adjustably connected by chains or cOrtls frolll a support a!JOve the said CUllstructed to rest upon or cruwn the shade. all suustantially as describeu."
In the reissue the l11vention is said to cr)11sist in "combining in an extension lamp fixture a silade-ring provided with a device for removably securing the shade to the with the lamp attached to said shade-ring, anel a weight of ring form to serve as a counter-balance; the said ring-shaped weight alld shade-ring connected by chains or corris over a suitahle support above, so that the lamp and Rhade may be drawn down, the weight-ring riling from the shade-ring." The first claim of the reissue is as follows:
"The combination, in an extension lamp fixture, of the shade-ring, adevice for remova!llysecuring the sha']e to the rinn', the lamp attached to saill sll<\llering, the ring-shal'ell weight allli cOllnected uy chains or curds over a suppurt above, '3ubstantial1y as described."
In the second claim the shade was added to the combination of the first claim. In view of the history of the original patent in the patent-offiee, and of the original specification, the claims of the reissue should be so construlJd a::l to compel the weight-ring to rest upon or