NILES TOOL-WORKS t1. BETTS MACHINE 00.
belongs to him who conceived it. The machine, process, or product is but its material reflex and embodiment. A new idea may be ingrafted upon an old invention, be disti.ct from the conception which preceded it, and be an improvement. In such case it is patentable."
It has also been declared by the supreme court that "the application of an old profJess or machine to a similar or analogous subject. with no change in the manner of applying it, and no result substantially distinct in its nature, will not support a patent, even if the new form of result has not been before contemplated." Penns.l/lvania B. Co. v. Locomotive Ellgine Safety Track Co., 110 U. S. 490; S. C. 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 220; and to the same effect is Morris v. MeJlfillin, 112 U. S. 244; S. C. 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 218. But the same court had already declared, and has since reaffirmed, the doctrine that when a patentee has produced new, useful, or improved results by a new combination of old constituents he will be protected. Hailes v. Van Wormer, 20 Wall, 353; Reckendorjer v. Faber, 92 U. S. 347; Pickering v. McCullough, 104 U. S. 310; Stephenson v. Brooklyn R. Co. 114U. S. 157; S. C.5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 777. . The propositions established by these cases are that a combina· tion is patentable (1) if it produces new and useful results, though all the constituents of the combination were well known and in common use before the combination was made, provided the results are a product of the combination, and not a mere aggregate of several results, each the product of one of the combined elements; (2) if it produces a different force, effect, or result in the combined forces or processes from that given by their separate parts, and a new result is produced by their union; (3) if it either forms a new machine of distinct character or formation, or produces a result which is not the mere aggregate of separate contributions, but is due to the joint and co-operating action of all the elements; (4) when the several elements of which it is composed produce, by their joint action, either a new and useful result, or an old result in a cheaper or otherwise more advantageous way. See, also, Merwin, Inv. § 135 et seq. These are hut varied expressions of the same doctrine. Here the patentee has undoubtedly produced, if not a new, an improved, reRult, in a new way, and. in doing so has exercised the faculty of invention. The attention of skilled mechanics and engineers had been directed for many years to the discovery of a more convenient and effective contrivance for counterbalancing in boring-mills, and it was reserved for this man to invent a combination which has wrought beneficial results in many ways. 'l'his is something more than the mere application of mechanical skill to a change form. and not of substance, though it may be difficult to distinguish broadly between skill and invention. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Locomotive Track Co. and Morris v. 1l1cMillin, supra, are fair illustrations of the application of old contrivances to analogous results without v.27F.no.3-20
the invention of new oombination, or the produotion of new or improved results. In this oase, the patentee has invented a new odmbination whioh produces, in a new and better way, new and improved results. In the words of Just.ice CLIFFORD: "It is a new idea ingrafted upon an old invention, distinct from the conception that preceded it." Let a decree be entered for the complainant.
TATE V. THOMAS.
«(Ji;rcuit (Jourt, 8. D. New York. December 28, 1885.l 1.
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMENT-TATE QmLTING-MACHINB.
Former opinion, 22 Fed. Rep. 660, adhered to.
SAME-IMPROVEMENT ON MACHINE.
Where, by the addition of certain elements, a machine is made which is properly the subject of a patent, as an improvement on a machine which it is claimed to infringe, it does not follow the original machine has not been infringed.
In Equity. Edwin H. Brown and Edward N. Dickerson, for complainant. Solomon J. Gordon, for defendant.
WALLACE, J. A careful study of the Niooll patent, aided by the testimony of the experts for the parties, has resulted in the conviction that this patent has no material bearing upon the validity or the construction to be given to the eighth claim of the complainant's patent. It shows a series of needles set in two rows, with longitudinal and lateral feeding devices, in a sewing-machine organized to stitch pieces of fabric together by double rows of stitching in parallel lines. 'rhere is no fair suggestion in the patent of any organization of needles and feeding devices by means of which the lines of stitching made by the needles are to have any such relation to each other as is indispensable to produce the result contemplated and effected by Tate, viz., to produce a diamond pattern by the juxtaposition of the parallel zigzag lines at the angles of the apexes. The troublesome question in the case is whether the defendant's machine, constructed pursuant to the specification of tho patent to Manning A. King, of June 9, 1874, is an infringement of the eighth claim the complainant's patent; and the patent to Nicoll does not afford any assistance in its solution. This question has been fully reconsidered since the hearing of the cause, and the conclusion originally reached has been confirmed, although not without some vacillation of opinion. The defendant's machine produces diamond patterns by employing the alternating needles, with the necessary feed-
BOFF t.l. mON-CLAD MANUF'a co.
ing devices, which are the subject of the claim, and to the extent to which these parts co-operate to produce the new result of the patent (whether that be considered the making of the diamond pattern or making them by conjoining zigzag lines of stitehes) it is not apparent that there is any difference in their mode of operation in the patent aud in the machine. If it be conceded that King, by employing additional needles, hall made a machine which is properly the subject of a patent as an improvement upon Tate's, it does not follow that he has not appropriated Tate's invention.
and others v.
!RON-CLAD MANUF'a CO.l
«(Ji1'cuit OOU1't, 8.
D. New York. April 10, 1886.)
PATENTB FOR INVENTIONS-CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIM-INFRINGEMENT.
The first claim of letters patent granted June 19. 1883, to Charles Hofl', was for "the method of forming the body of a coal-hod or other similar vessel, which consists, substantially, as before set forth, in first forming a coneshaped body from a suitable blank, then folding in the cone end of said body in crimps, to form the bottom." Defendant formed only a part of its coalhod bottoms by folding in the sides, and then closed the space between the folded ends with a cap. Held, that Hoff's first claim should not be limited to a method in which a perfect cone-shaped body is first made, and that defendants infringed said claim.
2. SAME-HENRY S. REYNOLDS' PATENT OF AUGUST 26, 1883.
This patentee may have made a patentable improvement over Hoff's device, but it contains the essentials, and is an infringement of the first claim of the Hoff patent.
In Equity. Arthur V. Briesen, for complainants. Ernest O. Webb, for defendants.
WALLACE, J. This suit is founded on a patent granted to Charles Hoff, June 19, 1883, for a coal-hod. The claims of the patent are as follows:
"(1) The method of forming the body of a coal-hod or other similar vessel. which consists, substantially, as before set forth, in first forming a coneshaped body from a suitable blank, then folding in the cone end of said body in crimps, to form the bottom. "(2) As a new article of manufacture, a coal-hod formed of a single piece, and having its bottom crimped or folded, to form a series of annular ribs or rings of progressively increasing diameter, substantially as shown and described." ·
The patentee was the· first to perceive the advantages of making a coal-hod in which the sides and bottom should be formed ont of one piece of metal in such manner that the bottom, while be1 Edited
by Charles C. Lintllicum, Esq., of the Chicago bar.