HARTFORD WOVEN-WIRE II:'CO. V. PEERLESS 'VIRE M. CO.
stronger, for here no objection whatever was interposed to the inquiry respecting the imprisonment of the accused. Having made no objection to the inquiry, and gained all the advantages to be secured by his false statement, it may perhaps be that it does not lie in his mouth now to say that his statement was not material. See Beg. v. Gibbons, supra; Reg. v. Mullany, Leigh & C. 593. But, however this may be, it is our opinion that the statement he made was material matter, within the meaning of the statute, because calculated to affect his credit as a witness. The other points discussed have received our attention, and are thought to be untenable. They are not such as require attention in this opinion·. The motions are denied.
HARTFORD WOVEN- WIRE MATTRESS Co. TRESS Co. Circuit COIl1't, D. Connecticut.
PEERLESS WIlm MAT-
No.7,704-NoVI!:LTY. Reissued patent No. 7,70t. granted to the Hartford Woven-wire Mattress Company, as assign.·e of John M. Farnham, for an improvement in bedstead frames, on May 29,1877, held not void for want of novelty, and infringed by defendants. 2. SAME-PERKINS PATENT No. 109,446. Patent No. 109,446, granted George C. Perkins for an improvement in wovenwire fabrics for mattresses, dated November 30, 1ti69, held void for want of invention.
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-WIRE MA1'THESSES-FAUNHAM PATENT- REISSUE
In Equity. Charles E. Perkins, for plaintiff. Wm. Edgar Simonds, for defendant. SHIPMAN, J. This is a bill in equity to restrain the alleged infringement of reissued letters patent No. 7,704, granted May 29, to the plaintiff, as assignee of John l\f. Farnham, for an improvement in bedstead frames, and also of letters patent No. 109,446, granted November 22, 1870,.to George C. Perkins for an improvement in woven-wire fabri(ls for mattresses. The original Farnham patent wus dated November 30, 1869. The description of the Farnham invention, as given in the original and reissued specifications, is contained in the ouinion of this court in Woven-wire Matt·ress Co. v. Wi1'c-web Bed Co. '8 FED. REP. 87. The four claims of the reissue are as follows:
"(1) The combination of the side-bars and end-bars, and ela.. coiled wire fabric, D, attached only to the end-bars, with the end-bars of the frame elevated above the side-bars, so that the fabric will be suspended above the sidebars from end to end of the frame. (2) The comuination in a removable bed-
bottom, or bedstead frame, of the side-bars, A, standards or corner pieces, B, end-bars. C, and the elastic fabric, D, combined and arranged substantially aB and for the purpoBe specified. (3) The inclined duuble end-bar, C, of the bed.stead frame, arranged substantially as and for the purpose herein shown and described. (4) The standards, E, constructed as descri bed, arranged longitudinally adjustable on the side-bars of a bedstead £ral11l:', to permit the inclined end-bars to be set a suitable distance apart, as set forth."
The third and fourth claims are substantially identical with the two claims of the original patent. The object of the invention was to provide a frame by means of which the elastic, woven-wire fabric, which is the subject of letters patent toFranz Rudolph Wegman, dated March 6,1866, could be conveniently and securely held. The invention consisted in clamping the two ends, only, of the fabric between double inclined end-bars, so that the entire strain of the weight upon the bed-bottom being lengthwise rather than crosswise, and in the direction of the greatest elasticity of the fabric, will also come upon the edge only of the bars ; and further consisted in connecting the side-bars and end-bars by longitudinally adjustable standards, or corner pieces, which would permit the inclosed end-bars to be adjusted so as to stretch the fabric, if desired. The object of the first claim of the reissue was to enlarge the patent so that inclined end-bars need not be indispensable, but that the invention should be made to consist, so far as these bars are concerned, in end-bars elevated above the side-bars. The elevation necessarily results from the method in which the frame is constructed, but the feature of the invention which was a novelty, and which gave to the first claim of the original patent its value, was the inclined end-bars. So also the words "attached only to the end-bars," are an undue enlargement of the original patent, if the invention is permitted to depend upon that feature. At the same time that feature is a part of the structure which indispensably belongs to it, and which the drawings exhibited, and when the claim is limited, as it must be, to double inclined end-bars, there is no expansion of the original patent. It is a matter of common knowledge that the fabric was always attached only to the end-bars, in the sense that it was supported entirely by those bars. The curtain or fringe, which sometimes hung from the end-rails to the side-rails as an ornament or finish, never was attached to the side-bars so as to have any "pull" upon them. The intent of the second claim of the original patent was to eliminate the inclination of the end-bars and the longitudinal adjustment of the standards from the description of the invention; but the claim must be construed to require both those features, or their manifest equivalents, known to be such at the date of the invention. While protesting against this construction of the first and second claims, the learned counsel for the defendant admits that it leaves to them life and validity. The novelty of the first and third claims was considered and SUB-
HARTFORD WOVEN-WIRE M. CO. V. PEERLESS WIRB M. 00.
tained in the Wire-web Bed Case, 8 FED. REP. 87, and by Judge BLODGETT in Whittlesey v. Ames, 13 FED. REP. 895. The infringement of those claims can hardly be doubted, after the testimony of the president of the defendant corporation, who admits that his company sold frames with inclined end-rails, though he denies that they were intentionally made so as to infringe. '1'he standards of the second and fourth claims are thus described in the specification of the reissue: "To the ends of each side-bar are secured, by means of bolts, a, a, upwanl
projecting standards, B, B, made of metal or other suitable material. These bolts pass through short longitudinal slots in the standards, whereby the latter may be adjusted to stretch the cloth when desired. These standards are grooved or have ribs on their inner sitles by which the ends of the entl-bars, C, C, are held. Tbe end-bars corinect the side-bars and their standards with each other. * * * The end-banl are held in inclined positions, as shown in Fig. 1, by the ribs or grooves in the standards, and are Jwld in place by means of screws, C, which are fitted through the standards, or by other equivalent devices."
These standards are upwardly projecting iron chairs, to which the end-bars are fastened and in which they rest;., and which are secured to the side-bars by bolts passing through slots, and thus the side-bars are longitudinally adjustable so that the end-bars may be moved to tighten the fabric. It is plain, the elastic bed-bottom being suspended entirely from the end-bars, that a great strain will come upon them, and that each bar must be firmly secured to each of its neighbors. This necessity calls for a standard or support which shall bind the bars together, so that the strain shall not move them, and yet it must be capable of adjustment, so that the fabric may be tightened or loosened, if need be. The novelty of the standard is attacked by letters patent No. 26,575, granted to A. M. Dye, December 27, 1859. The object of his invention was "to obtain a facile mode of straining or tightening the webbing of the [bed] bottom," and consisted in attaching the end-bars to the side-bars by means of dovetailed projections upon the bottom of the end-bars, which slide in dovetailed slots cut in the tops of the side-bars, and by a screw-bolt which passes through a hole in the dovetailed projection and beyond it'into the slot, and is held firm by a nut which presses against the projection. This is a method of fastening the side-bars and end-bars together, and of longitudinal adjustment of the side-bars for the purpose of tightening the webbing, but is a very different thing from the longitudinally adjustable standard of Farnham, which rigidly binds end-bars and side-bars togetheI. 'fhe Dye arrangement has no standard. On the contrary, the &lldbar slides in a slot in the side-bar. The two systems arb upon a different principle. The defendant uses the Farnham standard without a slot in the standard, but it is made longitudinally adjustable on the side-rail in the following way: A slot is made in the rail into which a projection on the inside of the standard enters; a screw bolt runs longitudinally
through this projection and holds the side-bar firmly in its place, and iscapabJe also of adjusting the side-bara relatively to the end-bars. In the plaintiff's device the slots are in the standard, and the bolts pass laterally through the slots. In the defendant's device the slot ill in the rail, and the bolt passes longitudinally through the slot. In each case the standard is longitudinally adjustable on the side-rails for the purpose of permitting the end-bars to: be set at a suitable distance apart. The change in the location of the slot makes it necessary that the screw which holds the rail and the standard together should move longitudinally instead of laterally. Thus far there is no change in function; there is merely a mechanical change in the form and arrangement of the parts. In the defendant's device the screw is of itself available in stretching the fabric, whereas in the plaintiff's device the fabric must be stretched by some force extrinsic to the standard, and the screws hold it after it is stretched. The defendant has thus obtained an effect additional to the one theretofore produced, but, having taken the Farnham standard and all its beneficial results, the infringement is not mitigated because another result has been superadded. The Perkins patent was for an improvement upon the Wegman patent of March 6, 1865. The Wegman invention consisted "in constructing a mattress of spiral wire springs, linked or braided together and stretched upon a fra.me. ;r · ;II The springs are made of steel or other wire, wound into a spiral form by proper machinery. and linked together so that each convolution of the spring passes through two or more of the adjoining springs." The patentee also said that the spiral wire springs will ordinarily be arranged double, is, consisting of two series of springs interwoven together, but that a greater number of spirals can be linked together to give greater strength and stiffness to the web. The Perkins invention is said in the specifications of the patent to consist "in forming cords of several spiral metallic springs in parallel coils wound together in the manl1er hereinafter described, and also in weaving them into a wovenwire fabric of any of the usual forms made of coiled wire for the purpose of stiffening such portions as may be necessary. Condensing somewhat the language of the specifications, "the spiral wheels from the cords are woven or coiled together, so that the convolutions of one wire lie close to and parallel to the next. cords can be formed by introducing the end of each coil separately at one end of the cord and turning it through to the other end." In mattresses these cords are placed near the edge, and are also placed at distances apart through the fabric so as to give it the desired stiffness. From the quotation which has been given from the Wegner patent, from the history of the improvement as detailed by the witnesses, and fr-1m inspection of the article itself, it appears that the was not an invention, but was a matter of ready mechanical adjust-
HUNDY V. KENDALL.
mento The recent decisions of the supreme court are emphatic in demanding for a patentable invention more than the novelty and utility which may be expected to result from the special knowledge and intelligent skill of the mechanic in the branch to which the invention belongs. Hollister v. Benedict Mlrnuf'g Co. 113 U. S. 59; S. O. 5 Sup. Ot. Rep. 717; Thompson v. Boisselier, 5 Sup. Ot. Hep. 1042. Let there be a decree for an injunction and an accounting with respect to the Farnham patent, and for a dismissal of so much of the bill as relates to the Perkins patent. The costs pertaining to each issue are to be taxed in favor of the successful party, but the excess only of one over the other is to be paid.
March 16, 1885.)
(fJircuit Oourt, D. New Jersey.
PATENTS FOR INVENTI'INS-INFHINGEMENT-PnELIMINARY INJUNCTION-LACHES.
Where a patentee has known of infrijlgement by a party of his patent, and acquiesced thereIn for a considerable length of time, a preliminary injunction will not be granted, without an explanation of such acquiescence.
NIXON, J. This is a motion for a preliminary injunction ag!linst the infringement of reissued letters patent No. and is resisted by the defendants on the ground that the mechanism used by them does not infringe the complainant's invention. The original patent was numbered 158,967, dated January 19, 1875, and was granted to the complainant for improvement in friction-drums. This was surrendered and canceled, and the reissue was granted July 13, 1880, on amended specifications. Three new claims were added to the reissue, and the single claim of the original patent was retained. The bill of complaint only alleges the infringement of that claim. The question, on this motion, lies in a very narrow compass. The validity of the patent has been sustained, and the claim construed by Judge WHEELER, in Mundy v. Lidgerwood j1r!anuf'g Co. 20 FED. REP. 114. In deciding tbe motion, I shall deem the patent valid, and ac(jept the construction given to it by the learned judge in that case. The invention relate8 to new and useful improvements in frictiondrums for pile-drivers and hoisting-machines, and is said in the specifications "to consist in making the friction surface of the drum of pieces of wood confined endwise in a shell formed on the inner side of the gear-wheel; such pieces of wood being dove.tailed in, and turned at an angle of 30 to 40 degrees, to fit within a conically recessed disk on the drum." The claim is for a combination as follows: "(4) The combination of a tubular and sliding drum, A. loose on a shaft, G, and a friction-cone, D, of the fast-Jl'i vell spur-Wheel. E, having spring,