fore incompatible, and the specific power given by section 26 must be held prevailing in the specific cases there named, viz., existing suits,while the general language of section 6 must be limited to those cases in which judicial proceedings were commenced after the passage of the act. In this way effect is given to both sections, in accordance with the usual rule, where there are apparent conflicts in different sections of the same act, viz., that the general language of one section must be limited in order to give effect to the specific provisions of another section. Pennin,gton v. Coxe, 2 Cranch, 33, 52; Mutual Life IllS. Co. v. Champlin, 22 Blatchf. 334, 337; S. C. 21 Fed. Rep. 85, 87; U. S. v. Bassett, 2 Story, 389; U. S. v. Aujfmordt, 19 Fed. Rep. 901, 902. In the present case the suit was already pending at the time of the passage of the act of 1874. The subject of the informer's compensation was therefore properly before the secretary and the court of claims, and its decision is binding. In the decision on the former petition referred to by the petitioner's counsel, it appeared that the petition was based upon the act of 1867. No ruling was intended upon the question here prtlsented. On both grounds the petition should be denied.
WOLLENSAK V. REIHER. 1
(Oircuit Oourt, N. D. Illinois. July 26,1886.)
Letters patent No. 191.088, of May 22. 1877, and No. 196.851, of November 6, 1877, to John F. Wolleneak, for sky-light and transom lifters, must, in view of the patent of Mareh 11, 1873, to the same inventor, and the decision in Wollensak v. Reihe;r, 115 U. S. 87, S. C. 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1132, be limited to theh specific devices. They are not foundation or generic patents. 2. SAME-INFRINGEMENT-PATENT No. 226,353. Transom lifters, made in accordance with the specifications and of patent No. 226,353. of April 6, 1880, to Frank A. Reiher, infringe the Wol· lensak patents Nos. 191,088 and 196,851.
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-TRANSOM AND SKy·LIGHT LIFTERS.
Although the Wollensak patents are, to some extent, limited by his oldel patent, he is entitled to the benefit of the specific devices shown in them. and of their known equivalents.
In Equity. Banning cf: Banning, for complainant. Chas. T. Brown, for defendant. BLODGETT, J. This is a suit for an injunction and accounting b;y reason of the alleged infringement of patent No. 191,088, granted
by Charles C. Linthicum, Esq., of the Chicago bar.
WOLLENSAK tI. BEIHER.
Yay 22, 1877, to the complainant, and of patent No. 196,851, granted November 6,1877, to complainant, for sky-light and transom lifters. The first patent contains three claims, infringement being charged as to the first and second, which are as follows:
"(1) The sliding block. C, carrying the spring locking bolt, g, in combination with the fixed guide-bar. B, connecting rod or rods. h, and the operating cord or cords, f, substantially as described, for the purpose specified. (2) The combination of the operating cord,f. with the spring locking bolt. g. and the sliding block. C. to which the sash is connected, as described, so that the act of pulling the cord backwards shall disengage the locking bolt from the bar. B, and a continued downward pull upon tbe\Same cord shall mise the sash, substantially as described."
Patent No. 196,851, of November 6, 1877, contains but one claim, which is as follows:
"The plate, C, slotted at both ends, and attached to the door-jamb, in connection with the guide or operating rod, E, connected to the lifting arm·of the transom, and carrying the lug. h, at one end, and the adjustible knob, at the oUler end, substantially as described, for the purpose specified."
The defenses set up are (1) non-infringement; (2) that complainanrs patents are void for want of novelty. It appears from the proof that complainant obtained a patent March 11, 1873, for a transom lifter, and that this patent was reissued and, after its reissue, suit was brought against this same defendant, and the first claim of the reissue held void for want of novelty by Judge DRUMMOND, whose decision was affirmed by the supreme court. 115 U. S. 87; 5 Ct. Rep. 1132. Owing to this older patent, and the decision upon it, there can be no doubt that complainant's two patents involved in this case must be limited to their specific devices; that is, they are not what we call "foundation" or "generic" patents. Defendant's infringing device is described in the patent issued to him under date April 6, 1880, and the question in the case is whether transom lifters constructed in accordance with the specifications and drawings of defendant's patent infringe either one or both of complainant's patents. The elements of patent No. 191,088 seem to to be-First, a long stationary guide, provided with holes and notches to receive a spring locking bolt; second, a spring locking bolt -adapted to fit into the holes or uotches in the long stationary gnide, and thus to lock automatically the transom at different degrees of openings; thif'd, a sliding block or head.piece, carrying a spring bolt up and down the stationary guide. so that Ruch spring bolt can automatically lock the transom at any desired point; and, fourth, means for disengaging the locking device, and opening and shutting the transoIJi with one band, and without changing the hold. The elements in patent No. 196,851 seem to me to be-li'irst; Ii. long, slotted stationary plate, attached to the door-jamb, and serving to guide the lifting rod; second, a lug, on the upper end of the lifting
rod, extending outwards through the slot and plate, whereby the guiding of the lifting rod is effected, and the attach ment to the lifting arm is made; third, resting or placing the weight of the transom, which would otherwise bend the lifting rod, against the slotted plate, by means of the pin placed transversely through the lug immediately on the outside of the plate; and, jou1,th, the knob or handle on the lower end of the lifting rod which serves the double purpose of unlocking the device when turned partly around, and of raising or lowering the transom when moving up and down in the slotted plate. An examina.tion of the defendant's device, as shown in his patent, and in model No.3 in the testimony, seems to me to show an application and use of the elements of complainant's two patents as charged in the bill, or substantially all of them. It has the fixed guide at. tached to the window casing, the sliding block traveling in the slot, the spring-lock, locking bolt, and rod connecting the sliding rod with the transom window or sky-light, so that the window or sky-light will be opened or closed by the movement of the block. It is true that Reiher uses a rod to operate the spring locking bolt, while the plaintiff's locking bolt in the first-named patent is operated by a cord; but it is very evident .that defendant's rod is the equivalent of the cord as used by complainant. The use of the rod instead of a cord dispenses with the pulley shown in complainant's device, but defendant's rod performs the same function, and· no other, that is performed by the cord. It is true that the defendant's lock is made by causing a pin upon the guiding rod to engage, when the rod is turned, with a notch arranged for that purpose; but this change in the locking' device is merely colorable, as it seems to me. In fact, without going into details, it is sufficient to say that I find, and I think the testimony in the case both for the complainant and defend. ant fully justifies me in so finding, that the defendant's patent embodies substantially the elements of both the complainant's patents, and may be said to be a combination of the essential elements of both patents in one device. I therefore have no difficulty in finding that the defendant infringes upon the complainant's patents. The only question left is whether the complainant's patents are void for want of novelty. As already stated, I think both these patextent limited by the complainant's older patents; ents are to but this limitation does not prevent the complainant having the benefit of the specific devices shown in the two patents now in suit; and in the use of those devices, or of known equivalents for them, performing the same function; and doing substantially the same work done by the corresponding parts in the complainant's patent, he should be protected. I am therefore of the opinion that the defense of want of novelty is not Bustained, and that the plaintiff is entitled to an accounting, and an injunction.
WOLLENSAX t1. REIHER.
WOLLENSAK 'V. REIHER. 1
((Jircuit (Jourt, N. D., illinois.
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-SET-SCREWS.
July 26, 1886.)
Letters patent No. 278,759, of June 5, 1883, to John F. Wollensak, for an improved set-screw, sustained, and found infringed.
In Equity. Banning .x Banning, for complainant. Ohas. T. Brown, for defendant.
BLODGETT, J. This is a bill for an injunction and accounting by reason of the alleged infringement of patent No. 278,759, granted June 5, 1883, to the complainant for an improved set-screw. The scope and object of the invention is set out in the specifications as follows: "My invention relates to that class of screws known as 'set' or 'thumb' screws, and its object is the providing of means to prevent that portion of the screw which is operated on by hand from becoming detached and lost; and the improvement consists in attaching a lug to the male so that, after the male screw enters the female screw, this lug or spur is bent downward to a position where it will engage upon a lug or nib upon the outer shell of the female screw, whereby the male screw can only be turned until this lug or spur comes in engagement upon that on the outer shell of the female screw. The claims of the patent are:
"(I) A set-screw, consisting of a male and female screw, provided with lugs designed to prevent their entire separation, substantially as described. (2) The male screw, A, prOVided with a lug, ai, in combination with the female screw, B, provided 'with a lug, b, substantially as described, and for the purpose set forth."
The chief, if not the only, use to which the invention has so far been applied, has been to fasten the lifting rod of a transom, so as' to hold the transom open or closed, the lugs described preventing the set-screw from being removed by a child or other person who might meddle with it. Defendant admits that he has made and used thumbscrews constructed substantially as described in the patent, but insists that he ceased doing so immediately after this suit was commenced. As there is no evidence in the case showing, or tending to show, that this device is not both new and useful, and the infringement is clearly made out, there must be a decree fOl'an accounting and injunction in fuor of complainant.
tEelited by Charles C. Linthicum, Esq., ofthe Cbicago bar.