KNAPP V. BENEDICT·
.. And, a reissue could only be granted for the same Invention embraced by the original patent, the specification could not be substantially changed, either by the addition of new matter or the omission of important particulars, so as to change the scope of the invention as originally claimed." .
The specification here is open to both criticisms,-new matter has been added and important particulars omitted. If the inventor had entertained the same idea of the scope and character of his invention in July, 1869, that he did in May, 1871, it is hardly possible that he could have been so unfortunate in making himself understood. No man of ordinary intelligence would retain for 18 months a patent which describes and claims a device bearing hardly a trace of resemblance to his invention. There is no escape from the conclusion that the three-part oil-can was an after-thought; that the object of the patentee in 1871 was to obtain a patent for a different invention from the one described and claimed iJy him in 1869. Regarding the second ground of demurrer it may be said that the IQoment the patentee opened his patent he saw that, both in the description and the claim, he had limited his invention to the screwthreads. It was then his duty to act. It was not a case of an involved or intricate description. If there was a mistake, the veriest tyro in invention must have perceived it. The excuse advanced by the complainant, that he did not discover his error because he was igno!ant of the laws pertaining to letters patent, is wholly insufficient. The case cannot be distinguished from Wollensak v. Reiher, 115 U. S. 96, S. C. 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1137, and the other decisions of the supremecourt since January, 1882. The demurrer is sustained.
and another. 1
(Oircuit Oourt, D. Oonnecticut. February 12, 1886.)
PATENTS 1l'OR INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMENT.
To a bill for infringement of letters patent No. 189.233, of Apr118, 1877, to Henry F. Knapp, for means for relievIng stranded vessels, the only defense was non-infringement. The defendant had used thllsame methods for relieving a vessel, which had been in frequent use since 1860 for removing sandy obstructions, and therefore held that he did not infringe.
The court is pe, mitted to avail itself of common knOWledge in regard to matters of science, (BrO'lOn v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37,) and by that knowledge to define the scope of a patent.
In Equity. Edwin. H. Brown, for plaintiff. S.Pickett,.for defendants. ,L
ChlUles c; Linthicuni; ·Esq.,· of the Chieago bar.
SHIPMAN, J. This is a bill in equity to restrain the alleged ment of letters patent No. 189,233, granted to the complainant, April 8, 1877, for an improvement in means for relieving stranded vessels. The only defense which is set up in the answer is non-infringement. The invention is thus described in the specification of the patent:
"This in vention consists in certain novel means of mani pulating a stranded vessel, so that she may be relieved with facility; and consists in introducing within her hold one or more main tubes, which are tapped at intervalS by small pipes, that are made to pass out through small apertures in the bottom of the vessel on either or both sides of the keel. and are fitted air or water tight for the purpose of forcing water through the entire arrangement of pipes, so as to soften the sand, as well as to lubricate the contact or friction of the sand or mud against the outside skin of the vessel, and thus enable her to move more readily by means of warping-lines. As vessels that run ashore on sandy coasts are rapidly' banked up' with sand by reason of the peculiar action of the sea, it is an important feature of this invention that such banking up can be largely avoided, as well as reduced, by the means herein described; also the running action of the sea will, at times, cut away the sand. etc. from under a portion of a stranded vessel. leaVing her to rest on an uneven foundation, which causes her to not only strain badly. but to frequently be the cause of her breaking to pieces. 'rhis result I propose to avoid by softening and washing or blOWing away the sand from under that part of the vessel that is not already cut away by the action of the sea. so as to secure an even foundation and bottom for her along her whole length. Again, vessels that go ashore on sandy beaches most frequently take a position broadside to the sea. and. as their flotation is facilitated by getting them end to tlle sea. this may be accomplished by ejecting the fluid into the sand, under the board side forward, and port side aft. or vice versa, according to the circumstances of her position, all in order that she may be gradually slewed around, as desired. "
The first claim is as follows:
"(I) The process herein described of relieving stranded vessels. by causing them to float in a fluid or semi-fluid. by means of forcing continuous streams of fluid. immediately around its bottom, into the sand or mud in which the vessel is embedded or lies, for the purpose of washing away and softening the sand. while at the same time a lateral movement or strain is imparted to the vessel by means of warping-lines or equivalent means, whereby it may be moved into deeper water, substantially as and for the purpose set forth."
On January 9, 1884, the Robert Morgan, a new schooner of 552 tons, which was commanded by the defendant Crossley, went ashore, broadside, on the beach at Atlantic City. A contract was made with a wrecking company to put the vessel afloat, and operations to that end commenced about the middle of February, which, prior to May 24th, resulted in slewing the schooner around with her stern towards the ocean. The captain thought that there was wreckage or some hard substance under the vessel which prevented her progress. He had seen on the beach at Atlantic City, the sinking of piling or posts by the aid of a stream of water forced into the sand at the bottom of the post, and had also been shown by the managers of the works company the effect of a stream of water upon sand, and he thought that the obstruction could be removed or sunk in the sand
MARCHAND V. EMKEN.
as the result of a similar plentiful injection of water. through a nozzle undur the vessel. He therefore contracted with the Atlantic City Water-works Company to lay pipes and hose to the schooner, and to furnish him water through the pipes. The ends of these pipes were thrnst into the sand under the vessel, to the depth of seven or eight feet, and water was let into the hose from the city bydrant for four days from May 24th to May 27th. The consequence was that the sand under the vessel was in a semi-fluid state, the vessel sank some feet, and if there was any wreckage it disappeared. 'l'he use of the water was objected to by the wrecking company, and was discontinued. On May 24th the log-book says that the sand was cut out about 30 feet, and the vessel was moved nine inches. The log of May 26th says as follows:
. "8 P. M. Vessel started to roll, rolling slightly tor about an for the first time since she came ashore. Rolling caused by the three streams of water amid-ships. * * * Moved altogether this tide 15 feet."
On June 11th the vessel was got off from the beach. As the court is permitted to avail itself of common knowledge in regard to matters of science, (Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37,) and by that knowledge of the state of the art to define the scope of the patent, such knowledge in regard to the use of a jet of water through a pipe and nozzle, for the purpose of lowering piles into sandyfoundations, and of removing sandy obstructions, shows that the defendant did notbing except what had .been in frequent use si'nce 1860, and did not infringe the patent. The bill is dismissed.
(Cireuit Court, 8. D. New York. February 18, 1886.)
PATE;NTS FOR INVENTIONS-MANUFACTURE OF HYDROGEN PEROXIDE.
The-first claim of letters patent No. 273,569, of March 6,1883, for an improvement in the manufacture of hydrogin peroxide, is void for want of patentable novelty.
SAME-SUBSTITUTION OF MACHINE FOR HAND POWER.
It does not constitute invention to stir, by a well-known and simple mechanical device, a liquid which had before been stirred by hand; and hence the mere substitution of a revolving screw, driven from a power shaft, for paddles operated by hand, for stirring such liquid, is not patentable.
In Equity. B. F. Lee and W. H. L. Lee, for complainant. Marshall P. Stafford, for defendant. COXE, J. The complainant is the owner of letters patent No. 273,·
by Charles C. Linthicum, Esq., of the Chicago bar.