patent ill sufficiently definite under the order of recommitment. Defendant's first exception should be overruled. The master found that no prior pump contained any part of the plaintiff's improvements as defined by the court. The fact that in prior piston pumps the chamber and valves could be reached and removed by hand is immaterial. The portion of defendant's profits for which he is accountable is not to be measured by what was attributable to the use of a diaphragm instead of a piston, but it is the profits attributable to the use of plaintiff's patented combination. The defendant's second exception is overruled. The findings of the master that the improvements covered by plaintitt's. patent are not found in prior pumps, and that the Edson waterpump may properly be considered as an abandoned experiment, seem to me to be correct, and therefore the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth exceptions are overruleli. The ninth exception is also overruled. I think the master's report on the state of the art, and the exact improvements covered by plaintiff's patent, are sufficiently clear, and that his finding that at least one.half of the profit made by defendant is to be attributed to his use of plaintiff's invention should be affirmed. This disposes of the tenth exception. The remaining exceptions, so far as they are not covered by those already considered, raise the question whether the master properly refused to report the evidence. Under the circumstances as presented in the master's report, and which it is unnecessary to enter upon in detail, I am of opinion that the master was justified in the action taken. Defendant's exceptions overruled. Plaintiff's oxceptions overruled. Defendant's petitioIl for rehearing denied.
and others v.
(Oircuit Oourt, D. Maine.
September 23, 1886.)
PATENTS FOR INVENrrIONS-WILLARD FISH POCKET-PATENT
No. 240.680. Patent No. 240.630. granted to Henry E. Willard, April 26, 1881, for improvements in fishing apparatus, is void for want of invention.
In Equity. William Henry Clifford, for complainants. George E. Bird, for Eben C. Cooper.
by A. H. Davis, Esq., clerk United States circuit conrt ofYaine.
WILT.ARD V. COOPER.
Herbert G. Bt'iggs, for Charles Thomes. Before GRAY, Justice, and COLT, J.
Com, J. In these suits the respondents are charged with infringing letters patent No. 240,630, granted to Henry E. Willard, ApriI2(), 1881, for in fishing apparatus. The object of the improvement is to provide a pocket or bag into which the fish, which have been caught in a seine, may be transferred, and kept alive until they are dressed for packing. The apparatus consists 'of a pocket attached to the vessel's rail, and hung upon two booms which project from the side of the vessel. The booms are attached to the hull of the vessel so as to move freely in different directions. There are guys at the outer ends of the booms, which serve to adjust them in alateral ' direction, while they are raised and lowered by means of tackle extending from the masts to their outer ends. Outhauls connected with the outer corners Of the bag serve to lower and raise the outer edge of the bag. Lace lines are permanently attached to the center of the head-line, and run each way through grommets which are fastened. to the head-line. There are supporting lines connected with the center of the bag's head-line, which are of use when the vessel rolls heavily. The seine is brought along-side the pocket by the seine-boat. The outer edge of the seine is then fastened to the edge of the bag, along the whole front of the bag, between t\fe outer ends of the booms. This is done by thrusting the corks of the seine between the lace lines and the head-line, and then pulling the ,lace lines taut. The claim is for the pocket in combination with the seine, lace lines, grommets, outhauls, booms, head-line, corks, supporters, and guys. The defendants introduce a prior patent granted to Benjamin Merritt,Jr., in 1858, which shows a net for catching fish attached to the side of a vessel, and stretched out upon two movable booms projecting from the vessel. Numerous witnesses are oalled, who testify to the use of fish pockets, with and without booms, in. connection wi,th a seine, prior to Willard's device. Many of these witnesses are not wholly disinterested, and for this reason this evidence is not entitled to the weight it would otherwise have. But, while reGeivingthis evidence with caution, still, in view of what was manifestly old and well known, we cannot discover more than the exercise of mechanical skill in the construction of the Willard apparatus. We can find no invention in combining a fish pocket with a seine in the manner described, nor in the use of booms, which are attached to the vessel in the same way as the old boat's boom, nor in the use or guys, head-lines, grommets, and other well-known apparatus. In making and working a fish pocket, it seems to ustbeseQld and familiar things would immediately suggest themselves to one skilled in the art. In our opin. ion, Willard qIade no invention or discovery, in the sense of the pat. ent law, such as entitles him to a monopoly, and therefore the bill must be dismissed.
and others. I
(Oircuit Oourt, D. Maaaachuaettl. October 5, 1886.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-TIME-LQCKS.
Letters patent Nos. 284,049 and 284,142, of August 1883, to Henry F. Newbur;v, for improvements in mode of mounting time-locks, construed, and held limIted by the prior art to the particular modes of isolating time-locks set out in the patents. and that defendants, employing sUbstantially mechanism, did not infringe.
In Equity. Saml. A. Duncan and Benj. F. Thurston, for complainants. Wells W. Leggett, for defendants. Before GRAY, Justice, and COLT, J.
COLT, J. The compla.inants allege infringement of two patents numbered 284,049 and 284,142, dated August 28, 1883, granted to Henry F. Newbury for improvements in mode of mounting time-locks. The complainants contend that the ordinary mode of mounting timelocks, by attaching them to the interior face of the outside door or wall of a safe, does not afford protection against the use of dynamite or other quick explosive. By the explosion of a small charge of dynamite outside the door or wall of the safe, opposite or in close proximity to the time·lock, it is said the delicate parts of the time movement may be broken, in consequence of which it will run down, thereby withdrawing the dog, and enabling the bolt-work to be released. The object of the Newbury invention is to guard against this danger by the isolation of the time·lock from the door and walls of the safe. Newbury describes three modes of isolation: The time-lock may be attached to the face of an inner door, sufficiently removed to prevent injury from the bulging in of the outer door by means of dynamite; Or it may be mounted on a hinged supporting bar placed at So sufficient distance behind the door; or it may be supported on So fixed standa.rd rising from the bottom of the structure, and removed SQ far from the door and walls that it is protected from injury. The defendants deny that Newbury was the first to isolate a timelock, and they introducp alleged anticipations. Before the date of the Newbury invention it appears that time-locks had been monnted on a plate or strip of metal which was attached at one or both its ends to the bolt frame of the safe door. They had been mounted ana plate which was bolted to one of the bars of the bolt frame, so as to bring the look directly behind the bolt·bar. They had -been attached to plates supported from the door bY,standards or thimbles. A had been fastened tOll, wooden block placed in '<me corner of the s'afe, and· held in place by wooden wedges. Bub1 Edited
by Charles C. Linthicum, Esq.. of the Chicago