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.
new or different res,ult from any that had been obtained before, or an old result in'a better way. There is nothing which is distinctively new in the whole, or in any, of ,the parts, in function or effect, in the complainant's patent, and it must therefore be held to be invalid.
NORTH AMERICAN IRON-WORKS tl. FISKE.
'Oircuit (Jourt, 8. D. New YO'I'k.
April 19, 1887.)
PATENTS roB INvENTIONS-INvENTION-DRINKING 'fROUGX;
, A drinking trough for animals, made with a supply-pipe, valve, and float In the interior, Mvered by a case with water, all allound it, coming from tbe bottom through openings in the case, which gi,ves free acce,ss to the water on all sides, and has the advantage of the water coming in at the bottom and in the middle, flowing upward and away from the center, involves some invention, though not of a very high order, and a patent therefor is Where defendant, in a suit for infringement, contests the validity of the patent, whichis sustained, a decree for an account,with costs, will be passed.
In Equity. Suit for infringement of letters patent. PranciJJ Forbea, for orator. ' Andrew J. Todd, for defendant. ,
WHEELER,:T. This bill is brought upon letters patent No. 816,639. dated April 28, 1885, and granted to Jonathan Moore for a drinking trough for, animals. The answers sets up severa:! prior patents, prior knowledgellnd use by want of invention, and denies infringement.. That part of thell.nswer which sets up prior patents, knowledge, and use is not supported by any evidence. The validity of the 'patent rests upon the question whether it, shows any patentable invention. ' The patent itself states that such troughs had been made of wood, with a covered, float and valve, at one end to admit and regulate the height of the water, which would prevent access to the water from all Irides, and expose the parts to injury by attempts to drink near them; anda:lso that iron troughs had been made with standing supply-pipe and overflow. The trough of the patent is made with a supply-pipe, valve, and float in the byacase with open water all around 'it.coming from the bottomtbrough openings in the case. This gives 'free, access to the water on all si<!lfs; and has the advaritages of water comingin at the bottom and in the niiqdle, flowing upward and away from ·thecenter.This to give these advantages would require some calculation and contriving peyond the skill of a' mere workman, and ipvolved some invention,ll1thoughnotofa very high order. It held to 'be sufficient in the to warrant a' paterit, and does not now appear to be, so msufficient as to render the patent void for want " , ,' , " . .' .. . oHhis foundation.