((Jz"rcuit Oourt, lv. D. Pennsylvanz"a. May 19, 1886.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-HANDLES FOR CROSSCUT-SAWS.
Letters patent No. 78,653, issued June 9, 1868, (antedated May 19, 1868, to P. Donoughe, for an improvement in handles for crosscut-saws, construed and sustained.
SAME-NOVELTY-COMBINATION OF OLD ELEMENTS.
The arrangement of a wooden handle for crosscut-saws, with a threaded shank entering a securing nut in such handle, and having its lower end slotted to receive the end of the saw, a ferrule inclosing the lower end of the handle to prevent abrasion of the latter by the saw, and a washer loosely secured to this ferrule, presents a patentable combination; although each of the elements of the combination was old at the date of the invention, and the combination of several of them in saw handles was also old. The rule is well settled that an anticipation, in order to defeat a patent, must be clearly made out. A patent raises a presumption of priority which can only be overcome by clear proof. An assignment of a patent from the administrator of the patentee gives the assignee the title, unless a better title is shown in another.
SAME-ANTICIPATION-PRIORITy-PRESUMPTION OF, FROM PATENT.
SAME-ASSIGNMENT BY ADMINIS'l'RATOR-TITLE.
On Bill, etc. George Hardin.g, Francis T. Ohambers, and George M. Reade, for complainant. Bakewell et Kerr, for respondents.
BRADLEY, Justice. This case, though a small one, has given me a great deal of perplexity. The patent sued on is dated June 9,1868, and antedated May 19, 1868, upon an application which was sworn to October 3, 1865, and filed in the patent-office February 19, 1866. The drawings and model were filed at the same time, the printed copy a misprint. The applicaof the file-wrapper to the contrary tion was at first rejected on the second of March, 1866; but upon a very slight alteration made in the claim, it was authorized to be issued in November, 1867, and was actually issued June 9, 1868. The patent is for an improvement in handles for crosscut-saws, invented, as alleged, by Patrick Donoughe in 1864 or 1865. The im· provement consists, as stated in the specification, in the combination and arrangement of a handle, ferrule, washer, screw-nut, and a shank furnished with an opening for the saw-blade, the whole constructed, arranged, and operating, as afterwards described, with references to the drawings. The handle described is the ordinary upright wooden handle used on crosscut-saws. Into this handle is inserted from below, a rod constituting the shank, provided with a screw-thread, working in a nut fixed in the interior of the handle, so that by turning the handle the rod is drawn up into it, or forced out, at will. The lower end of this rod or shank has a long narrow slat for receiving the end
lEdited by Charles C. Unthicum, Esq., of the Chicago bar.
DONOUGHE V. HUBBARD.
of the saw. When the saw is inserted in the shank, it is drawn tightly up to the handle by turning the latter in the proper direction, so as to draw the rod or shank up into the handle. '1'0 protect the handle from wear and abrasion when the saw is drawn tightly against it, its lower end is provided with Itn iron ferrule, and between the handle and the saw is interposed an iron washer of the size of the end of the handle, and having a hole in the center for the rod to pass through. On its upper side this washer (when the saw is drawn tightly to its place) is in: contact with the ferrule; on its under side it is in contact with the back of the saw. In order to prevent the washer from dropping down out of place, away from the handle, when the saw is lowered for removal, or when the shank is lowered to receive the saw, it (the washer) has a sleeve surrounding the hole in the center, which projects upwards, inside of the ferrule, where it is turned over or flanged out, so as to rest on a projection in the ferrule. The washer is thus loosely attached to the ferrule, and cannot drop away from it, although the ferrule may turn with the motion of the handle without turning the washer. This arrangement is described in the specification as follows: "The washer is placed in the ferrule, b, and is set or bent down on the flange of the ferrule, as represented in Fig. 1,but arranged so that it will tnrn in the ferrule with ease." One of the features of this handle is that the rod or shank does not project above the handle, nor even pass through it, the upper end of the rod being concealed in the interior of the handle, and the top of the handle having the usual smooth and rounded appearance, so as not to injure the hand of the workman. The claim of the patent is as follows: "What I claim as my invention is the arrangement of the handle, a, ferrule, b, washer, c, rod, d, and nut, e; the whole being constructed, arranged, and operating substantially as herein described, and for the purpose set forth." In other words, the claim is for the whole concrete thing, with all its parts, substantially as described. This is the form of the claim, and, in view of other saw handles previously patented, described, or in use, no broader claim could well have been allowed. Each part, and the arrangement of the parts, are essential elements of the invention. The use of all but one, omitting the one, would not be an infringement of the patent. The first question to determine, therefore, naturally is whether the defendants do use the entire handle as described in the patent, with allits parts, and their arrangement; and I think this qnestion must be answered in the affirmative. The handles made by the defendants, and for the making of which they are prosecuted in this suit, are such as are described in letters patent granted to one Elijah R. Osgood on the eleventh of November, 1879. The answer of the defendants states that the handles made by them were and are made in accordance with said letters patent, and these letters patent were put .in evidence. Besides this, specimens of the handles made by the de-