EWART MANUF'G CO. '/I. MOLI,N,E. MALLEABLE IRON CO.
As a patent for a casting by a new process of manufacture, certainly this. patent in no manner describes a process by' whicb the casting is wade,. and must be held void as a process patent f"r a new article of manufacture for want of specifications as to the process. The casting of ribsj"rsome additional material, upon the hooks,;fof the purpose of making them stronger, is certainly not It patentable device. It is simply nothing more than the addition of more material ipa particular form l or in the form of ribs. for,the purpose of giving additioilal strength to device ::ts old, perhaps, as the hooks to the old-fashiont;d the chain. of soft metal l;:ovel,'ed by the second claim xpight .well be disposedofin the same manner. It is nothing more than to leave ,a portion oithe hook attenuated or drawn out so that it will readily bend underpressurej or, by the application of the hammer, to close· up the hook and. p'revent ·the ret$ction of the links.' It :'seemstome,therefore, thilt'fromno has been suggested can this patent be sustained as a new invention. It was old to cast even links'for sprocket--whl\lels; but, ifit·hadnot been old to do this; it )Vas old to make castings of cast ir"n or malleable iron, light and small like these,.@il which, 'when as . small as ,these links. are, were EIlightly flexible, and into various forms, especially if the hook ,was subjected to1the processofa:nnealing. The bill istherefore,dismissedfofwant of equity.
'/7. MOLINE MALLEABLE IRON
Co. and others·
. (Oircuit (Jourt, N, D. fllinQia.
FOR' INVENTIONS - NEW DEVICE .... IMPROVEMENTS IN CHAIN- L'm1ts. Letters patent were granted to one Sylvanus Locke, February 23, 1675, for an improvement in chain-links and chams, being a method of constrncting a chain with links detachable from the adjoining links, and so arranged that the links, when turned iJitoworking position, could not become disengaged The device effected an aJ;'ticulation of the links by thrusting an .en,d,bar with a forward movement into the jaws of a hook, when. the llnks, being tilrn!;Q backward, became safely united for working purposes. The proof showed . that a patent was· previously granted to one :mwart for· a similaJ;:de:vice,. but. the articulation was accot,nplished by a sidewise movement. He'll" on a bUl .:tiled to restrain. infringement, that the device described in the Locke patent was new in art, and said patent 'Wits not defeated by the prior Ewart patent, altl!.ougl!. its scope was lilhited. by the prior state of the. art as shown by lIflid Ewart.
'T\1e manufacture of links With the use of an end-bar arranged to enter the' of a hook bya forward movement, the links being slightly fastened togather by bending down the point of the hook so as tp narrow the throat ot thll/lame,the links admitting a severance by a small amount offorce, isto aU'interits such a Use of' the characteristics of the said Locke patent as will be:deemed an infrinjtement of the ssme. . .
Offield, Towle &; Phelp8, (B. F. ThwrBttm, of counsel,) for complainants. West&; Bond, for defendants. .. .
BWDGETT, J .. This is a billinequity for an injunction and accounting, by reason of. the alleged infringement of a patent granted February 23, 1875, to Sylvanus Locke for lean improvement in chain-links and chains;" the special 'utility 'of the link consisting in its adaptation to the formation of what are known as sprocket or drive chains. The patentee states the object, and scope of the device in his specifications as follows: . "This hiventicin relates to a. tiieth\>dof constructing a ehain with links, each individuaUy detachable from 'its'adjoinIng links when brought to a certain relative'position thereto. The object of this improvement is to construct a chain with Jinks detachable "tany point, 80 that when desired the chain can be divided ap any part of its lepgtb. This is particularly useful for endless for transmitting motion, as the reel-cpains of harvesters, etc."·' . . .
.' The .distinguishing feature of this patent is an ,open. hook on a link which per'rilitsthe .end-bar of anothel1link to enter.tlie throat of the hook of when the links ate placed face· to .face, parts tha.t when links arettirned into their working position, the end-bar embraced in the hook cannot back out from' its,engagement with the hook; thus, by co.nnectmgJtogetber a series of-these links, making a drive-chain or sprocket-chain, E'Alch link of which is removable either for the purpose of shortening the chain, or taking out a worn or defective llnk, or for adding links so-as toinCl'eafle the length of the chain when necessary. !talso allows the manufactured links to be assembled or put together by the purchaser or user, without the aid of skilled workmen. InfringemEm.t is charged only ast to 'the first which is as follows: "(1) A chain-link, having its end-bars eccentric to the side-bars reversely to each other, oneaf said end-bars being provided with a, hook, substantially as and for the purpose specified." The defenses interposed are: (l)'That the patent is void for want of novelty in; the device. (2) Non. .. ..... ' ..... '. ..' .' ' showst'hat ma,lre a relllovable for· adrive-chain. On'SE:ptember 1, 1874,a:patent was issued to fqr a, ,i.n this clasll effected of hIS hnk8, by,$"sl.de movemeni hywhlCh an.end-bar ;'!f'ds the the hook when the links were placed r,elation to .... at'ticriiatibp .. been efieoted,· that is, after the end-bar had .been pla;ced within. the grasp of the IhO'bk; the 'link was thrned; bliiclt· iI1tb a workhig'Imsition, and the linke · thus joined could not be. separated .while in a position, or with· 111e)11 position in . they, were., united. permitstheend-bar:ofthe link to:epter the hook by an li,r'k'when the links atebtpught Itwe to ,f/;lee;: a11d ·wheI;l.the links .turned into. a positioz:l, Ule ends of the side-hars of the two links thus united abut'againsteaoh other so
"'. MOLINE MALLEABLE IRON CO.
as to prevent the end-bar from backingou.t or ciisconnecting itself from the grasp of the hook. Both the Ewart patent o£1874, and the IJocke patent ·nowunder consideration, show removable links, but the Ewart link was articulated with the hook by a sidewise movement, while the Locke device .effected the articulation by thrusting the end-bar by a forward movement into the jaws of the hook, when the link being turned backward became at once safely united for all working purposes. Ewart's being the only device for a removable link shown by the proof to have preoeded the Locke patent, I am of opinion that the mode of arthe link shown by Locke was new in the art; although Ewart had shown a mode of making a removable link by which a safe articulation was obtained by a different arrangement of parts,· I am, therefore, of opinion that the Ewart patent does not anticipate or defeat the Locke patent, and therefore that the Locke patent is not void for want ofnovelty, although its scope is limited by the prior. state of the art as shown by Ewar,t. As to the question of infringement, the proof shows ·. that the defend.. ants manufacture and sell a sprocket or drive chain, constructed of separate links articulated together by means of hooks and end.bars, the endbar being so arranged that it enters the throat of the hook by a forward movement or motion, and with such an arrangement of parts that when the links so united are turned into a working position the side-bars of the two links abut or strike against each other in such manner as to prevent the links from backing,outof the hook. The throat on defendant's hook is also slightly closed, evidently' by a blow or pressure after the articulation is 81lcomplished, so that the linkswiU not separate in any ordinary position in which the chains or links may be thrown in relation to each other. Notwithstanding this partial closing of the throat'ofthe hook top-revent the link fron'i dropping outof tpe cpnriection, itilil still evident that all the essentia+principles of a removable link are emboaied in tpe defendant's link. A small amount of force will evidently drive the end-bar out of the throat of defendant's hook whenever it able to claso for the purpose of inserting a new litik, or otherwise separating the links. Indeed, the proof shows that the defendant instructs,the purchasers of its links how to uncouple them after they have been once brought together, and the hook closed for working purposes, and shows that only a comparatively slight amount of force is necessary , when the links are in a proper position, to separate the link from the hook. The defendant insists that Locke is confined by his specifications and claims to a link so constructed that the end-bars shall be in planes eccentric to the side-bars,' arid claims that in defendant's links this feature is not shown'. As already stated, the feature of the Locke patentis suuh an arrangement of parts that when the links' are joined and turned into working position. the side-bars of the two links will be in the same plao'c, and theii'ends abut against each other so as to effectually prevent the end-bar from escaping from the grip of the hook.. Defendant's and end-bars are not thrown out of their respective' planes tothc' same extent or degree as is shown in Locke's patent; but the same effect is
. FEDERAL. REPORTER.
produced by a bulge oream upon the end of defendant's side-bars which abut against the end-bars of the link with which it is articulated by the hook, so as to produoe precisely the same'result which is shown by the abutting side-bars of the Locke patent. This bulge, or cam, upon the defendant's side and end bars performs the same function, and pJ;oduces the same result, as that produced by the Locke side-bars, and no otheri that is, it keeps the end-bar from backing out, or being released from the hook; and holds the link in place when in working position, and at the same time allows the links to be separated by turning them face to face. The only difference, then, between the defendant's that the defendant, after connecting his links link and that of together, slightly fastens them by bending the point of the hook down 80 as totiarrow the throat or openingofthe hook. It is still to allintents and purposes It removableliuk, and embodies aHthe characteristics and apparently useful features of thelin),:s shown iri t1:le Locke patent. A decree may be entered finding that the defendant infringes, and referring theimatter toa master todnquire as to damageS.
(dvreuit Oourt, E. D. Loui8iana. March 15, 1887.)
.. NoJmplied contract to pay dues results from a. vessel's making fast ata place on the banks of the MIssissippi river where no prohibition to land exists, ·atid where no facilities whatever are furnished for securing ves.' . . sel or, landing goods.
2. SAME-MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. The city 'of New Orleans cannot bY ordinance exact w.Q.arfage duesfrpm vessels landing or making fast to the batture of the Mississippi river in front of the city, at places where no artificial facilities whatever are furnished.
In Admiralty..;· Libel for wharfage dues. : Appeal from d'istrict court. T. M. libelant and, appellee. Fergwt Kernan. for claimant and appellant.
,PARDEE, J.The libelant, alleges that he is the lessee of the levee, landings, and wharves in the Sixtha:nd Seventh district8 of the city of New Orleans j.that the levee and lMtding dues are fixed for each steamboat by the ordinances of the said city at one dollatper day i that the steam-boat Lizzie E. made fast in front of and to the levee and landings of which libelant is lessee, on Novembe,r 3,1885, and so remainedul> to December9th,making 37 days at one dollar per daYi .that the use of the said levee and landings was and is necessary for the protection and