NEWARK MAclmtm CO. v. GAAB andothers.1
(Circuit Oourt. D. India1/,a. November 18, 1886.)
On the lame record and evidence "as in Newark Machine 00. Fed. Rep. 567, the decision in that case followed.
BAlI:E:"':CONSTRUCTION 011' CLAIMs-INFRINGEMENT.
'If the patentability of the devIces claimed in letters patent No. 822,465, of , JUlr21,1885, to Miller. for recleaner for grain-separators. ,be conceded, the claIms must. in view of the prior art, be construed strictly; and, not being found ill defendants' machine,hef4,. there was no infringement.
In Chancery. Well8 W. Leggett, M. D. Leggett, Wm. Wood Boyd, for defendants.
Lew Wallace, for plaintiff.
, WOODS, J. The qUElstions presented here,ex.cepting one, are the same which were recently considered and decided, and as I think correctly decided, in the case of Newark Machine 00. v. Hargett, 28 Fed. Rep. 567. The record and evidence in the two eases, it is conceded, are the stnne; but it is insisted that these defendants are shown to have infringed the device cowied by patent No.. 322,465, issued July 21, 1885, to Miller. The claims of that patent are two, and read as follows: ' "(1) A recleaning attachment for grain-separatol's, consisting, essentially, of a hopper, a screen for receiving ,the grain from the hopper, an elevator having a chamber at its lower end, and its upper end arranged to deliver the grain to the hopper, and an inclin,ed conductor having one end connected directly with the chamber of the elevator. and its upper end formed into a mouth. arranged under the discharge mO,uth of the screen to convey the tailings to the chamber of the elevator, substantially as set forth. "(2) The combination, with a separator, of a recleaning device, consisting, essentially, of a screen. an elevator for elevating the tailings to the screen, and a spout arranged directly between the screen and elevator for receiving the tailings from the screen, and discharging them into the elevator frame or casing. " If the patentability of the device described in e.ach claim be conceded, it is clear, in the light of the earlier art, that these claims must be construed strictly,-and, so construed, were not infringed by the defendants, whose recleaning attachments bave not had "a spout arranged directly between thescl'een and elevator," nor "an inclined conductor haVIng one end connected directly with the chamber of the elevator." Besides, the evidence shows, as I view it, that these devices or claims had been anticipated by the Shively recleaner. Bill dismissed for want of equity.
JEdited by Charles C. Linthicum, Esq., of the Chicago bar.
THOMPSON ". HALL
(Oircuu Court, E.
York. July 24,1885.)
PATENTS FOR INvENTIONS-:PA!l'ENTEE AN EMPLOYE-LET'l'ERS PATENT 975-IllPROVEMENT IN CUTTING-PLIERS.
A patent was issued to plaintiff, Henry G. Thompson, as assignee of Mosel C. Johnson, for an improvement in cutting-pliers, and he filed a bill for dam· ages and an injunction against one Hall. It appeared that Hall was presi· dent of a company engaged in making cutting-plIers under a patent issued to Hall. The writ turned on the question whether a certain model was made by Johnson while he was in the employ of the company, or after he had been discharged by Hall. Held that, on the evidence, It was not made till after the discharge; that Johnson was not the first inventor; and that the bill must be dismissed.
In Equity. Horace Barnard, for plaintiff. Amos Broadnax, for defendants.
BENEDICT, J. This action is founded upon letters patent No. 232,975, dated October 5, 1880, issued to Henry G. Thompson, assignee of Moses C. Johnson, for an improvement in cutting-pliers. The bill charges infringement, and prays for damages and an injunction. The question at issue is whether the combination described in the plaintiff's patent was invented by Moses C. Johnson while an employe of a corporation styled the Interchangeable Tool Company, which corporation was engaged in the manufacture of cutting-pliers under a patent issued to the defendant Thos. G. Hall, then the pres' ident of the corporation. In support of the averment that Moses C. Johnson was the first inventor of the combination in question, the in the case as defendant's Exhibit plaintiff produces a model C, which model embodies the invention in question, and was made, as the plaintiff has sought to prove, while Johnson was in the employ of the Interchangeable Tool Company. On the other hand, the defendants assert, and have sought to prove, that this model was not made by Johnson while employed by the Interchangeable Tool Company,but after Johnson had been discharged from that employment, and for the purpose of supporting a fraudulent claim to an invention really discovered by the defendant Hall, put forth for the first time by Johnson after he had been discharged from the service of the Interchangeable Tool Company. In one aspect, the decision of the case depends upon a question of time; that is to say, whether this model, (Exhibit C,) composed of brass and iron, was made when Johnson says it was, while he was a workman for Hall's company, or at a date subsequent to Hall's discharge of Johnson. Upon this qnestion much testimony has been taken on both sides. Upon a full consideration of all the evidence,
Ilteported by R. D. & Wyllys Benedict, Esqs., of the