8TEAM-GAUGE & LANTERN CO.". ROGERS.
presser-foot. In. the Nicholson machine the presser-foot is fixed, and the adjuliitability belonging to the cutter is anadjustability which operates, not to bring the cutter and blank into paralleli:;;In, but to throw them out of parallelism. The main feature of the Bernat machine of adjusting the presser-foot in a horizontal plane, so as to make it parallel with the cutter, is wanting in defendant's device. The c.ontention of the plaintiff that the third claim .of the Bernot patent covers every machine in which the presser-foot or guide is set parallel With the chisel, it seems to me, cannot be sustained. Claim 3 is for "the arrangement of a parallel to the graver, as hereinbefore described," etc. The claim. must be construed with reference to the specification and drawings,. It is the means or mechanis"'m by which a is accomplished, that is covered by the patent, and the question is whether the defendant accomplishes the same result by substantially the same or equivalent means. In view of the radical difference between the two machines already pointed out, I am satisfied the defendant does not infringe; and this disposes of the case, without rendering it necessary to consider the other defense which is raised. Bill dismissed, with costjf.
STEAM-GAUGE &; LANTERN
Co. and othera ,.
(Oirc'Uit CO'Url. D. Ma88achuBcu6. April 15, 1887.)
PATENTS FOB hrvENTIONS....:INJ'llINGJUlEllT-No. 244,944-AWUfDJlEllT OJ' CBElI:.
E. S. Jenney, for complainants. George H.Knight, for defendants.
NELSON, J. And now, at the suggestion of tbe parties, wbo appear by their respective attorneys, E. S.Jenney for complainants, and George H. Knight for defendants, it is ordered that the opinion of the court on file in this case (29 Fed. Rep. 453) be corrected by striking out the words "bent partly round," in the last paragraph, and inserting in place thereof the words "passed through loops on," so that the first two clauses thereof shall read as follows:
"'fhe defendants' lantern differs from the plaintiffs' only in the following particulars: In the former the side wires are hooked into the lower perfoplate, instead of being wound round or under it; and. in place of gouides. they are supported laterally. by being passed. through loops on tile side tubes."
TEMpLE PUMP CO. ". Goss PUMP & RUBBER BUCKET MANUF'a Co.
(Oircuit Oourt, No D. fllinoia.
May 16, 1887.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-IMPROVEMENT IN PUMP BUCKETS-INFRINGEMENTCONTEMPT.
Pierce FWher, for complainant. A. N. Waterman Bond, for defendant.
BLODGETT, J. This is an application for an attachment for contempt against the defendant, Sanford A. Goss, for violation of the perpetual injunction contained in the interlooutory decree in this case. (See Temple Pwrnp Co. v. G088 Pump Rubber Bucket Manufg Co., 30 Fed. Rep. 440.) The original decree found that the defendants infringed the first claim of the Churchill patent, which is: "(1) The combination of the grooved screw-bolt or link, A, the concave-convex rubber, D, and interior expanding washer, C, substantially as set forth." Since the entry of that decree, the defendant, Goss, has continued the manufacture of rubber buckets for chain pumps; but has used what he calls a solid screw-bolt instead of a grooved screw-bolt, as called for by the first claim of the complainant's patent; and the only question in the case is whether the first claim of the Churchill patent is to be limited to a screw-bolt with one or more longitudinal grooves in it. In his specifications Churchill says: "A represents a bolt or link, formed with exterior screw-threads as shown; also with one or more longitudinal groove8 or channels." And the first claim, as already stated, is for the "combination of the grooved screw-. bolt or link, A, with," etc. While I can see no necessity in the state of the art, or in the nature of the invention covered by this Churchill patEmt, for the patentee to have limited himself to a grooved screw-bolt or link, at the same time I must say that it seems to me very clear that he has done so. The proof in. this case shows that solid and grooved screwbolts were both known in the prior art; and undoubtedly, as this is a combination patent, the complainant might have provided that the screwbolts might be either solid or grooved, as the person using the patent should elect; but he saw fit to describe a grooved screw-bolt, and to claim a grooved screw-bolt as a part of his combination, and it seems to me, therefore, that he is limited to a grooved screw-bolt as an element in his patent. It is true that the groove, which is really intended as a driphole for the escape of the water when the chain comes to a rest, is not