FEDERAL REPORTER. ness of the extra sole has not always been regarded by them as material. As has been stated, there is nothing in the specification to indicata that the invention is for anything but a tap sale, without regard to thickness, absolutely or relatively, to the main sale. But the proofs show that the very thing the patentee designed to remedy-the tendency of the tap to start at the place where it joins the shank-was a defect in thin sales as well as in thick, and existed in the thin extra sales which were in use, before the date of Flynn's improvement. These extra sales were no thicker than those of the "Hayward German Shoe" and the "New Brunswick, 1866," according to the testimony of complainant's witness Mr. Jaquith. Some were probably thinner. The invention was as applicable to those thin sales as to thick ones, though doubtless the defect to be remedied was more serious when thick sales were used. Referring again to the statement of the complainant's expert that the invention is found "whenever the thickness of the sole is such as to tend to separate the tap or break the sale," (the form of the patent being adopted,) it follows that it is anticipated by the thin extra sales of the form and fastened to the main sole, as shown in the exhibits mentioned. Finally, it may be said that, although Flynn's form is more advantageous when used in a thick extra sole than when it is used in a thin one, his improvement is one of degree only; and, in view of the fact that this form, as applied to thin extra sales, was old, the improvement is destitute of patentable novelty. A decree is ordered for the defendant.
LALANOE & GROSJEAN MANUF'G Co.v. UNITED STATES STAMPING Co.
(Oircuit Oourt, D. Oonnecticut. May 19, 1880. \
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-NOVELTY-BISCUIT-PANS.
Patent No. 96,605, for" an improved mode of uniting small biscuit-pans together in clnsters, cOllsist.ing in providing the pans with horizontal flanges and riveting them," held void for want of novelty.
In Equity. Charles E. Mitchell, for complainant. Charles R. Ingersoll, for defendant. WALLACE, J. The invention covered by the claim of the patent in suit as described in the specification "relates to an improved mode of uniting small biscuit pans together in clusters, and consists in providing the pans with horizontal flanges around the tops, and joining them together by lapping the flanges and riveting them." Biscuit
PATTEE PLOW CO.
pans assembled and united in clusters were old when the patentee first made them. Several modes had been adopted for uniting them. the pans on a sheet of tin in the desired con· One was by tiguity, each pan being riveted through the bottom to a sheet. An· other mode was by riveting the pano to a strip or bar of metal instead of a sheet, and uniting the several strips or bars. In other instances the sheet and bar were dispensed with, and the pans were united by rivets through their sides near the rim; and in others still, the edge of one pan was lapped and seamed over the edge of the adjacant pans. n is testified to, and seems probable, that single flat·flanged biscuit pans, made of tin, were old. The patent contemplates pans of sheetmetal. But if flanged pans were new when made of tin or sheet· metal they were old when made of cast·iron. As shown in the patent to Waterman, granted April 5, 1859, pans of cast·iron were united in clusters by a cast connection, which was substantially a flange around the rim of each pan, extending from the rim of each pan to the flange upon the rim of the adjacent pan. This being the prior state of the art, the defense of want of novelty is fatal to the patent. The ordinary skill and judgment of the mechanic, with the prior structures before him, would suggest that such pans could be made with flanges and united by rivets through the flanges, if he desired to avoid inserting a rivet through the body of the pans. The Waterman structure alone would suggest the mode of the patent. As the flanges of that structure were united in the process of casting and could not be so united when sheet·metal was to be used, the obvious way to unite them in sheet-metal would be by lapping and riveting or soldering the flanges. The bill is dismissed.
and others. 1
(Oircuit Court, E. D. Misso'uri. :M:arch 2, 1885.)
1. PATENTS-NoVELTY. Letters patent No. 187,899, issued to J. H. Pattee, February 27, 1877, for an improvement in cultivators' axles, are void for want of novelty. 2. EXPANSION OF ORIGINAL CLAIM. The second claim of J. H. Pattee's reissued patent No. 6,080, for an improvement in cultivators, expands the original patent beyond legal limits, and is void. 3. Letters patent No. 174,684, issued to T. W. Kendall, March 14,1876, for a pivoted runner attached to a cultivator, is not infringed by a jointed runner which cannot be kept out of contact with the ground by the draught of the team.
lReported by Benj. F. Rex, Esq., of the St. Louis bar.