ting-pressare synonymous with cutting-die; on the contrary, when the term is used elsewhere in the patent, it plainly refers to tIle entire mechanism of the maohine. 'fhe natural meaning of the words, as well as the sense in which they are used in the patent, forbid the construction contended for by the complainant. It would be a forced to say that cutting-press means cutting. and unwarranted die, and by this means make the claim cover all leather-cutting mao chines in which we find a die and a revolving cutting-block. And, in view of the prior state of the art, we think the broad claim of are· volving cutting-block, in combination with a die, would be void for want of novelty. Simonds was not the first inventor of a revolving cutting-block; and we find a revolving cutting-block in combination with a die in the leather cutting-machine made by S. D. Tripp as el1rly as 1868 and 1869, and a revolving cutting-block operated upon with knives in prior machines for cutting meat. It was necessary, therefore, for Simonds to limit his claim, in order that it might be valid, to the specific mechanism described in his patent. The defendantsnot using such mechanism, there can be no infringement, and the bill must be dismissed. Bill dismissed.
(C2'rcuit Court, D. Ma88achwetts.
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-HYSLOP !IACHINE FOR MAKING SHOm-SHANKB-INFRINGEMENT.
Patent No. 159,577, dated February 9,1875, granted to John Hyslop, for an improvement in machines for making shoe-shanks, held ,alid, and infringed by defCmdant's machine, baving a forming die, flanged table, and vibrating arms.
inEquity. C. H. Drew and C. F. Perkins, for complainants. P. E. Tucker and C. H. Swan, for defendant. COLT, J. This suit is brought upon letters patent, numbered 159,577, dated February 9, 1875, granted to John Hyslop, Jr., assignor to the complainants, for an improvement in machines for making shoeShanks. The invention relates to a device for packing shoe-shanks upon a table after leaving the cutting and forming dies, by which means the labor is saved of packing by hand. The same patentee is the inventor of a machine for cutting, punching, and bending metal shoe-shanks, for which a patent, No. 129,347, was issued July 16,1872. The patent in suit was intended as an attachment to this machine. This appears from the drawings, specification, and evidence. The claim'of the patent is as follows:
"As an improvement in machines for cutting and bending metallic shoeshanks, t.he combination, with the forming die, E, of flanged table, F. and vibrating arms, H, fa:;tened to a shaft, I, oscillated by mechanism, substantially a:; described, as an,d for the purposes set forth."
The objection is urged that the.claim of the patent does not describe an operative device. The claim is for a packing device in combination with a forming die, in a machine for cutting and bending shoeshanks, and taken in connection with the prior machine, it is plainly operative and useful. The descr.iption of the prior machine in the patent being sufficiently clear and specific, it became unnecessary to make the movable former, D, which comes forward and presses against the forming die, E, or the other elements of the prior machine, parts of the combination claimed in the patent. Loom Co. v. Higgins, 105 U. S. 580. But, in view of the prior state of the art, it is contended that the patent is void for want of novelty, and we are referred to several patents as anticipating the Hyslop invention. The Kellogg patent, for printing-presses, dated January 6, 1863, shows a "fly" which receives the printed work as it passes from the press, and deposits the sheets, one by one, in a box. It can hardly be said, we think, that the "fly" of a printing-machine anticipates the Hyslop device. The mechanism may be somewhat similar, but the mode of operation is different. Nor does the Kellogg patent contain the same combination of elements as the patent in suit. The Weymouth patent, dated September 25, 1866, for making envelopes, has a device for slightly compressing the envelopes as they fall from the machine. It is difficult to understand from the drawings precisely the operation performed by what is termed the "follower." It is evident the device would not work in a machine for making shoeshanks. Certain parts of Weymouth pressing device are absent from Hyslop's machine. If we regard the claim of the patent as a combination of a forming die with a packing device, the Weymouth patent presents no such combination. As for the Baird patent, granted June 8,1869, for an improvement in receiving and conveying blanks from printing-presses, it is manifest that the mechanism is quite different from the Hyslop device. The Briner patent, No. 159,559, for forming spring shanks for shoes, is dated the same day as the patent in suit; but we think the evidence goes to establish the fact that the Hyslop invention was prior in point of time. It is therefore unnecessary to discuss the question of anticipation. So far as Briner undertakes to prove the use of a packing deyice similar to Hyslop's, for a period of six years prior to the date of his patent, we cannot but conclude from his whole testimony that he has failed to establish such use with anything like the clearness and certainty that is necessary. Upon the question of infringement we entertain no doubt. The defendant's machine has a forming die, flanged table, and vibrating arms. The fact that the blanks are cut before use in defendant'll
machine can make no difference. The patent in suit is not for any cutting mechanism. The invention is simply a forming die, which bends the shank so that it will stand on its edge in combination with the packing device. The end attained in both machines is the same, and the mechanism is substantially the same, or the equivalent. In the patent in suit the blank falls to the table by the action of gravity, after being operated upon by the forming dies. In the defendant's machine the wOl'king faces of the forming dies are horizontal, so that gravity cannot take the shank from the forming dies. Means are therefore provided to push the shank from the dies; and, as it is necessary for the shank to be on its edge, the forward end of the table is so shaped that in pushing the blank forward it will turn from a flat to an edgewise position. Tho devices are in substance the same, and the differences of construction are insufficient, in our opinion, to relieve the defendant from the charge of infringement. Though the invention of Hyslop is limited in its scope, we think it fairly patentable. He was the first to attach a packing device to a machine for making shoe-shanks. Let a decree be entered for the complainants, for an injunction and account, as prayed for in their bill. Decree for complainants.
THE E. B. WARD, Jr. 1 CARLSDOTTER and others v. THE E. B. WARD, Jr. 1
(Circuit Oourt, E. D. Louisiana. .March 27, 1885.)
COLLTSTON'-DAMAGES FOR DEATHS OF RELATIVES.
Relatives of persons whose lives have been lost by reason of a collision upon the high seas are entitleet to recover, under the general admiralty law, from the offending vessel damages for the loss of the society and support of their deceased relatives, and for the value of their personal effects.
Admiralty Appeal. See 17 FED. REP. 456. John D. Rouse and Wm. Grant, for libelants, appellants. Wm. S. Benedict and A. J. Murphy, for claimants, appellees. PARDEE, J. This cause came on to be heard at this time upon the and evidence, and was argued by counsel, whereupon, and in consideration thereof, the court doth find the following facts:
(1) The steam-ship E. B. Ward, Jr., owned by Oteri & Bro., of New Orleans, and the Swedish bark Henrik, were, on the twentieth day of January, 1882, in the Gulf of Mexico. about 95 miles off Cape San Antonio, Island of Cuba; the steam-ship proceeding on her voyage, under steam, in a direction south-east by south, and the bark proceeding, under sail, north by west.
IReported by Joseph P. Hornor, Esq., of the New Orleans bar.