DUESH tI. A. J. MEDLAR 'CO.
and the means of overcoming this difficulty must at once have presented itself to the mind. The remedy. adopted by the patentee was to support the wire in the center, as it was supported a.t the ends, except to allow free motion on the intermediate arm. This was the most obvious remedy,-one which could not have escaped any intelligent 'person conversant with the subject. It is unimportant whether the end of this arm be turned up, and the wire allowed to rest loosely upon it, or straight, and the wire passed through a staple or slot. Either will accomplish the intended purpose. It is unnecessary to consider other questions . presented by the case. The bill must be dismissed for the reasons stated.
DUESH, e. A.. J.
(CHrcuit Court, B. D. PennB1/l'Dania. April 25, 188'7.)
PATENTII II'OR lNvENTIONS,.--PATENT.U3ILlTY-COMBINATION 011'
Letters patent No. 90,577 were granted May 25, 1869, ;for a cracker-machina and autOmatic stopping device, combined so. as to operate in conjunction, The cracker-machine and stopping device were both old at the date of complainant's patent. Held, that the combination did not possess patentable .noveltv, as the combination produced no new result, and was only the of'ordinary plechanical skill. Letters patent No. 209,963 were granted Novemb6t 19,1878, for improve· Part of complainant's machine consisted of a ments in "tape-wire knife. RespoJ:ldent used a round-wire knife. Held not to be an fnfringemeht.'" .
Suit for infringement of letters patent. ' Banning & Banning, for defendant.
Gangwere, for complainant.
tars' patent No. 90,577,issued May 25, 1869, to Joseph Repetti,for
The suit is for infringement of claims 1, 6, and 7 ofle1;;.
cracker-machinej and also for infringement of claim. 3 of letters patent No. 209,963, issued to Henry Duesh, November 19, 1878, for improvement in soft-dough machines. The claims of the first patent here involved read as follgws:
"The combination of the automatic stopping device, consisting of the finger, I, rock-shaft, i, arms, hand h', rod, d, spring,f'. and stopper, g, with the plunger,}, screw, k, and pulleys a and a', or their equivalents, substantially as and for the purpose herein described. (6) The combination of the bevel wheels, 7 and 8, hand wheel, 9, with non-revolving screw, k, revolving nut, z, and plunger,j, SUbstantially as and fortlJe purpose specified. (7) The combinlltion of the slide, 6, with the movable bottom, 'Y 2, and dough-box, 10, substantially as and for the purpose set forthJn this specification."
· Reported by O. Berkeley Taylor, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.
These claims are for the several parts of a cracker-machine, <tnd. an automatio: stopping device, combined; so as to operate in conjunction. Both and stopping device were old at the date of plaintiff's' patent. This is not only proved very fully, but is admitted by counsel. The plaintiff simply brought them together"so as to work inconjlinction. In our judgment, this did not involve patentable novelty.·Inthe first place, no invention was required to effect the combination.It does not differ essentially from combinations previously made, between,this. stopping device and other machines. Any ordinary mechanio could have effected it as well. In the second place the tion was not productive of any new result. Each of the old parts ates precisely as before. The cracker-machine continues to make crackers as it did previously, and the stopping device throws the operating machinery out of gear, just as it didsirnilar machinery before., Previously the machine was stopped by hand, subsequently it was stopped by this device. The it, is seen, has qothing whatever to do with the operative effect or work of the The two were simply intojuxtaposition,-each continuing to perform its own functions separately, in its old way. The combination, therefore, was not patentable., As was . said ,by ,this court in Hoffman v. Young,' 1& 0.0. 794,2 Feel. Rep. 74:, "A: mere aggregation oiold parts, without an,y new result, issuing froriltheir united action, lsnot,patentable.The parts must combine in operation, and by their joint effect produce! a new result." ThUlis but the common language of all the cases. As respects the claim of the Duesh patent, here' invplyed,it is sufficient to sa1 that no infringement is shown. The patentee is clearly confined to a" tape-t/J'ire" knife, in hisoombination. This the defendant does not use. Although the words" tape wire" are not found in connectIon with knife, in the third claim, the knife there referred to is the same knife described in the first claim as a" The specifications clearly disclaim a rounl;!;wire, such ¥ the defendant employs. "I am aware that it is not new, broadly, to cut dough by means of a round wire, and such I therefore do not claim; the gist of my invention oonsisting in the use of a tape-wire knife," says the plaintiff. , ,The many ,other questions discussed need not be considered. The bill must be dismissed, with oosts.
J. L. MOTT !RON-WORKS
SKffiM and others.
(Circuit Cowrt, D. N('JIJ)Jersey. March 81, 1887.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONB-NoVELTy-MECHANICAL SKILL.
Letters patent No. 302,666, issued July 29, 1884, to the complainant as assignees of Samuel G. McFarland, for an "improved water-closet basin." held, void for want of invention, as nothing more than a combination of parts that were in use in other water-closets prior to the date of complainant's patent, involving mechanical skill only.
In Equity. Bill for infringement of letters patent.
Francis Forbes, for complainant. Browne, Witter & Kenyon, for defendants.
WALES, J. This is a suit for the infringement of letters patf'nt; No· .302,666, issued July 29, 1884, to the complainant, as assignees of Samuel G. McFarland. ,The claim of the inventor is for "a basin, having a concave' bottom, a tubular rim attd openings ,for' the water,.a single central connection at the back for the water sup.. ply pipe, a vertical discharge pipe, with a closed rounding upper end at the back of the closet, and below the water supply pipe, and a short tube passing off at one side of and near the upper end of the 4ischarge pipe, so as to receive the ventilating pipe and be clear of the water supply pipe." The defense is want of novelty. It is quite clear from the proofs that McFarland did nothing more than make a combination or aggregation of parts that were in use in other water-closets prior to the date of the complainant's patent. Rowley, Margan, Bostel, and others had preceded him in the invention of one or other of the essential feat ares and elements which he has brought together. He has placed in juxtll-position the English flushing rim, the Demorest supply connection, and the Brighton (Bostel) Q9Wlj the only departure from what had been in use before being the chapge in the location of the ventilating pipe. But this change can hardly be claimed as an invention. It seems to have been the result of mechanical judgment and skill only, whereby the location of -changed so as not to be in the way of another, .neither of which was a novelty. The single central connection at the back of the McFarland -closet wa!'! not new, neither was the ventilating tube; but in adopting the central water supply pipe, in order to avoid infringing the Brighton patent, which calls for a double supply pipe, he discovered that thia -central pipe might be in the way of the ventilating pipe, which hitherto had been 011 the top ofthe discharge pipe, and so he merely movE:jd the ventilating tube to one side'of the discharge pipe, and thus got it out of the way. Surely, this cannot be considered such an exercise of the inventive faculty as to merit or entitle it to the protection. of a patent. McFarland appears to have selected frdm various patents of ·such parts as he thouKht to be most desirable, and so proQ.uced wha.t may be a superior contrivance of that sort; but he h&S not a.