up, but abandoned. It is the settled rule that a defendant in a suit for the infringement of a patent for an invention, who sets up prior use and want of novelty as a defense, has the burden of proof upon him to establish the facts set up beyond all reasonable doubt. CantreU v. WaUick, 117 U. S. 690, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 970. Certainly the defendants' evidence here falls far below this standard of proof. In respect to the prior pUblications relied on as a defense, we need only say that, in our judgment, they do not fulfill the requirement of the established rule that such publications must contain in themRelves such a full, clear, and exact description of the invention as, without anything more, will enable one skilled in the art to practice the invention. Seymctur v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516. Upon the question of infringement, we adhere to the views we expressed at an earlier stage of the case. The proof of infringement is, we think, quite clear. It may be possible that the defendants are using a degree of heat somewhat higher than that specially mentioned in the patent, but so did the defendants in Cary v. WoW, 8upra. So long as the springs are kept below a red heat, the substance of the invention (as Judge WHEELER remarks) is taken. Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U. S. 707. Nor is it material that the defendants cool their springs by plunging them into cold water. The beneficial results are secured by subjecting the springs to the prescribed heat, and the patent is altogether silent as to the manner of cooling. And, if the springs are not raised to a red heat, it is immaterial whether air-cooling or water-cooling is practiced. McKENNAN, J. The foregoing case was heard at final hearing, before both Judge ACHESON and myself, and has been the subject of careful consideration and consultation, and the above opinion is the result of our considerate concurrent judgment. Let a decree in favor of the complainants be drawn.
VERNON .". HEBERLING and others.
(Circuit Oowrt, 8. D. Iowa, 0. D. June 11, 1887.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-IMPROVED COFFEE AND NUT ROASTER-CONSTRUOTION OF CLAIM-MECHANICAL EQUIVALENT.
Reissued letters patent No. 9,260 were granted June 15, 1880, to William E. Vernon, for an improved coffee and nut roaster, containing in the combination a boiler heated by burners or lamps, and a nut receptacle placed over the boUer, into which the roasted nuts were delivered and kept warm by the heat radiating from the boiler and burners or lamps. The defendants manufactured a machine in which a second pan was placed below the nut-pan, into which steam was carried by a pipe from the steam-chest and cylinder of an engine after its use in. moving the engine. The steam so carried into the second pan kept the roasted nuts warm in the pan or receptacle above. The proofs showed that the elements of the Vernon patent were all old. Held,
that said patent must be limited to the specific combination described and claimed. arid that defendants' machine. therefore, could not be regarded as a mechanical eQuivalent infring-ing the same.
In Equity. Bill to restrain infringement of patent. Cummins &: Wright, for complainant. Conrad &: Campbell, for defendants.
SHIRAS, J. On the fifteenth day of June, 1880, reissued letters patent No. 9,260 were granted to complainant for an improved coffee and nut roaster, consisting ·of a combination of a frame surrounding and supporting a casing, within which is placed a steam-boiler or generator, heated by burners or lamps placed underneath the same, a nut receptacle being placed over the boiler and casing, into which the roasted nuts are delivered from a rotary roaster, arranged upon the frame, and operated by an engine placed on the opposite side of the frame. By placing the nut-pan over the boiler and casing, the contents thereof are kept warm by the heat coming from the boiler, and the burners or lamps placed thereunder. In the machine manufactured by the defendant,there is placed below the nut-pan a second pan, connected with the steam-chest and cylinder of the engine by a pipe through which passes the steam after its use in moving the engine, it being condensed in the second pan named; the resulting water being again conveyed back to the boiler, while the heat set free bv the condensation of the steam is utilized in keeping warm the nuts placed in the receptacle. While there are several minor points of resemblance between the machines manufactured by the .respective parties, it is admitted by counsel that the material and controlling question is whether the method used by defendant in the nut pan or tray is or is not an infringement upon that secured to complainant by his patent, it being claimed by complainant that the devices used are merely mechanical equivalents. To determine this question it is necessary to ascertain what in fact is the novelty covered by the patent to complainant. In the specification attached to the reissued letters to complainant, he states that his invention consists-I( First, in the peculiar construction and combination of the portable supporting frame, steam:generator, engine, roaster, and receptacle for keeping the roasted .nuts hot, which is heated by the waste heat from the steam-generator, which is thus utilized; and, second, in the construction and combination of parts of the rotary roaster." The several elements named, to-wit, the supporting frame, steam-generator, engine, roaster, and receptacle for keeping the nuts warm, were all known before the date of the patent to complainant. His patent, therefore, is simply upon the combination of these already known elements. In regard to the matter oia heated receptacle for containing the nuts after roasting, he cannot object to the use thereof in defendants' machine, for such heated receptacle is not his invention. It appears in a patent issued to M. M. Northrup, August 10, 1875, in a form quite similar to that Ul:led by defendant, and is therein recognized as well known.
VEJ:tNON 'Ii. HEBERLING.
Complainant's pateni, then, does not preclude defendant from applying heat to a tray or receptacle containing the roasted nuts; but, at most, only precludes the special mode of applying the heat utilized in the complainant's combination. In this combination the heat from the lamps or burners, passing through the'tubes in the boiler, combined with the heat radiating from the boiler, is brought into contact with the bottom of tbe nut-tray. What complainant accomplishes in this respect by his combination is to confine and utilize the otherwise waste lIeat radiated from the boiler, ,and from the lamps or burners, and by means thereof compass the beating of the nut-tray. In the defendants'machine this' waste heat radiated from the boiler and lamps is not the means used to heat the nut-tray. The defendant uses the heat, freed from the condensing steam, after the same has done its work in moving the engine; and while it is true that, in one sense, the heat used .in each machine is derived from the same source, to-wit, the lamps or burners used under the boilers, yet in fact it is not the same heat, nor is it applied in the same mode. In the one case it is that portion of the heat caused by the lamps or burOElrs, which is not used in making steam, which is applied to heating the nut-tray, while in the other case it is the heat given out by the condensation of the steam into water that is communicated to the nuttray. If the complainant was the originator of the idea of keeping the roasted nuts in a heated tray or receptacle, and his patent covered the general method of heating such tray by the communication of heat to the 'bottom Of sides of such tray, for the purpose named, then it might well be tbatddefendant's machine would be held to be an infringement upon complainant's patent, because, in such case, the use of a heated tray or receptacle would be the principal element in determining the question of infringement. ,The case not, however, presented in this light. As already stated, complainant is not the inventor of any new element. His patent is upon a combination in which the waste heat from the burners and boiler are used to heat the nut-tray. In defend" ants' machine this waste heat is not used for this purpose, but, on the contrary, it is allowed to escape, and the heat applied to the nut-tray is derived from the condensed steam. - The combination patent of complainant covers the use of the waste lieat from the burners and-boiler for the old purpose of heating the nuttray. The defendants' machine does not use this heat for this purpose, but in place thereof utilizes the steam used in moving the engine. The latter is not the equivalent of the former, because the point is not whether the two machines accomplish the same result of heating the nut-tray, nor whether both include the application of heat to the nut-tray, but whether, in accomplishing the old and known result of heating the tray, by the old and known method of bringing heat in connection with the bottom of such tray, both machines use methods and devices that are the equivalent of each other. If it be true that the method used by defendant is the equivalent of that used by complainant, then it is difficult to see in what mode heat could be applied to the purpose of warming a nut-tray, without its being
deemed ,to be It mere equivalent to the method used by complainant, and in effect hie combination patent would thus be enlarged so as to cover almost the. entire field of applying heat to nut-trl\ys. Complain,. ant's patent in this particular. in fact covers very narrow ground, and covers only the use of the waste heat ffom the boilers and burners, ap,plied in the method described; and, as defendants' machine does not use this waste heat for the purpose named, H cannot be held to be an infringement upon complainant's patent. The bill must therefore be dismissed, at cost of complainant.
UNITED STATE;S METALLIC PACKING
Co. v. TRIPP.
(Oircuit Oourt, D. MaaaaohU8ettB. JuneH, 1887.)
PATENTS FOR. INVENTIONs-IMPROVEMENTS IN MENT. . . PACKING-INFRINGE-
In 1882 an injunction was granted, and final decree made, restraining the defendant, Thomas Tripp, from infringing reissued letters .patent No. 9,865, granted August 81, 1880, to Martin. Schneble, for improv.ements in Piston.,rod packing. The packing made by defendant, when so restrained, had two disks placed at the head of the stuffing-box, one with a concave recess, and the other with a convex projection which fitted into the recess. By means of this arrangement, the packing was cafable of a rocking or oscillating movement, and could so accommodate itsel to a bent piston or to a rod not set parallel with the axis of the steam cylinder. ,The defendant afterwards made packing with a changed form of disks, one having a coniC.al projection, and the other a beveled edge fitting over the projection. The result was the same in producing a rocking or oscillating movement, although imperfectly. Held, that the change was colorable only, and that an injunction should be granted to restrain such manufacture.
In Equity. Browne & Browne, for complainant. O. O. Morgan; for defendant. ,
COLT, J. This is a motion for a .preliminary injunction to restrain the defendant· from infringing reissued letters patent No. 9,365, granted August 31, 1880, to Martin Schneble, for improvements in piston-rod packing. In 1881 the assignor of the plaintiff corporation, and having the same name, brought a bill in equity for an infringement of this patent against the present defendant the Hancock Inspirator Company. To this bill the defendant, Tripp, filed an answer, denying infringement, denying the novelty of the patented invention, and denying that the reissue was for the same invention as the original patent. In January, 1882. a final detlree was entered by consent for nominal damages, and without costs, and for an injunction restraining the defendants from mak. ing, using, or selling any metallic packing infringing the reissued patent. Upon this state of facts, it is not open to the defendant on the present motion to deny the validity of the Schneble patent. The only