vnlid,unlesB it is limited to,the bridge or check-piece of the original claim. With that construction, there is no infringement, anG the bill is dismissed.
, ' INGHAM and others
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-N
(Oircuit Oourt, .w: D. Michigan. S. D. 1887.)
In a suit for an infringement by a patentee claiming under letters patent No,'121.054, for an "improvement in platforms or handles for fruit-baskets," it appeared that the advantages claimed were that the patented top was movable, allowing baskets to be nested, and assisted in better securing a network over the fruit; but these features were not novel. It also appeared that the patented article possessed a novel feature in a wire bent over at the top,. and brought down through a hok in the standard, to secure the standards of the cover to the basket, which held the cover'more rigidly in its place than other baskets in which such wire is brought down on tluJ8ide, outside or inside, of the standard. HeliJ"that the patent, being otherwise wanting in novelty, could .not be supported for this feature, which was dormant in it and unclaimed: '
In Equity. Suit for infringement of patent. RoBS Shinn and Dyrenjorth, for complainants. Taggart Deni8on, for defendants. SEVERENS,J. The bill in this cause was filed for the purpose ofrestraining an alleged infringement of the rights secured by letters patent to Joseph Knapp, September 21, 1871, for an "improvement in platforms or handles for fruit-baskets," No. 121,054. The complainants are the assignees of Knapp, the patentee. Several defenses are set up: (1) Want ·of novelty; (2) that defendants have not infringed; (3) abandonment by the patentee. The case has been heard on pleadings and proofs. . The oonclusionsarrived at by the court from a consideration of the pleadings, proofs, and exhibits, and the argument 'are as follows: Flirst; The specifications and claims on which the Knapp patent issued, indicate that the nature of the invention consisted in a removable platformor support, so arranged that it may be conveniently fastened to an ordinary frUit-basket, and in part hold the netting in place over the fruit, while at the same time it serves as a support to another basket on top for transportation, etc. The advantage claimed by the inventor for his improvement was that it suppl;ied aniIidependent top, which could be Inade anywhere, and could be attached for use at the same time the netting was put on, and afterwards detached. Thus the baskets could be nested, and conveniently sent from the factory to the place of using, and, after the contents were marketed, the baskets could be returned nested, which could not be done in the ordinary way of constructing the basket with the cover attached. The alleged invention was in the constmction of the cover of thin strips of stuff extending horizontally across the top
INGHAM 'tI. PIERCE.
of the basket, but elevated from it by short standards, which rested upon the rim of the basket. .A wire bent over at the top descended through a hole in the standard, and, cohtinuing through the basket rim, was turned under and around it, to secure the standards of the cover to the basket. The thin strips above mentioned were tacked on to the top of the erect standards at each end of the strips, thus preventing the wire which goes throul1;h the standard from getting loose. The inventor disclaimed the elevated platform, as such; it having been in previous use. His claim handle consisting of the above arrangewas for a removable ment, which would also allow the cover to be so attached as to in part hold the netting, covering the fruit, in place. From this claim, as illustrated by the specifications, it is apparent that the peculiar feature and resultant benefit designed by the inventor was, as stated, in the "advantage" of his,improvement which I have above set forth from his specifications; that is to say,the providing a removable cover, thus allowing the nesting of the baskets for transportation, and allowing also an addeci facility in securing the netting over the fruit. Second. It is clear from the evidence and the exhibits that the elevated platform top was in use some time before this alleged invention, and was to a very considerable extent so constructed as to' be'removable. In· deed, the only difference between the patented structure and one of these in quite extensive previous use consisted in this: that whereas, in the former, the wire was put through the standard, as above shown, and then about the rim, to secure it in place, in the latter the hooked into the top of the standard, was brought down wire, after side, ohtside or inside, of the standard, and then turned about the on basket rim. Some of the previous patterns had been patented; others not. Ther,e was therefore no novelty hi any feature which the inventor had in contemplation in making claim for his patent, or which, by the most liberal construction Of his specifications and claitn, can be suspected 'to have occurred to him. ' ' Third. It turns out, however, that the putting the wire through the standard, instead of down the side of it, has a tendency to hold the cover more rigidly to its place when attached than the other method, and in that respect has more of utility; but this feature was not claimed, or, so far aa appears, thought of, It sometimes happens that an invention con... talns features of utility which may be adapted to other uses than those specifically contemplated by the inventor, but those uses 'are kindred uses, br are an extension of the features into use in the development of cases the feature of utility exists in the patent,and is ex· art. In pressed by the claims, but the use is broadened. That principle would not llupport it patent claimed and granted for a feature which' was not novel,8sprotectingit lor another feature which was: dormant in it, and afterwards proving to 'be useful. FO?,J,rth. There are' other serious obstacles to' the complainants, but, up0D;!tpe view taken ,Of the first ground,it is not necessary todiscusa ' " The bill must be dismissed, with costs.
,STEVENSON V. MAGOWAN
(Oircuit OOU'l't, D. New,Jer8eg.
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-VALID ONLY IN PART-USE OF REMAINDER-VULCANIZING APPARATUS,
In the patent issued to Burritt·M. Hotchkiss and George M. Allerton, complainant's assignors, May 23.1871, for an improvement apparatus, consisting of the application of hydraulic pressure to the moulds in a vulcanizing chamber, the invention claimed was a cylinder and piston outside thevulcanizihg chamber, and pipes ,connecting with a supply of fluid or liquid under. pres!lure, whereby thl' power exerted to hold the moulds together wit)l a yielding force is Independent of the vulcanJzing operation. The evidence showed that the pate,nt granted to George E,Hayes, January 14,1868, and the condition of the artoi, vulcanizing rubber prior to this time, anticipated and invalidated all of 90mplainant's patent, except the vulcanizInA' chamber. The defendants used'machinery substantially covered by complainant's' patent, except that they, used no vulcanizing chamb;er. Held IW mfringement. , " , .
SAME-SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT-FAILU,IlE TO PLEADl'RIOR
Where nqtice is not given in the' answer of a specified prlo,r use of the invention desci-lbed in the patent; it cannot be set up as an anticipation of Buch inventiol'1;but, as exhibiting the state ,Of the art, the evidence ,is competent to aid the court in putting a cpnstruction on the patent. ' ,
Joshua, PWley, for complainant. F. a. Lowthrap, Jr., f9r defendft:llts.
BRADLEY, J. The bill in this is filed for an injunction, damages, etc., under a patent issued May 23, 1871, to Burritt M. Hotchkiss and George M. Allerton, for, an improvement in vulcanizing apparatus, consisting of. the application of hydraulic pressuret9 the moulds in a vulcanizing chambel', instead of pressure by screws and clamps, or by the steam generated in the chamber; the piston and cylinder producing the pressure being outside of the chamber, and the pressure being 'regulatedby safety-valves, so as not to be greater than necessary. This 'patent has been assigned to the complainant, and the defendants are charged with infringing it, and set up prior discovery, want of inven;tion, and non-infringement. Under the first head, theyrefer to two patents of an earlier date than the plaintiff's-one granted to A. B. Wood'ward, January 16, 1866, reissued May 19, 1868; and the other granted to George, E. Hayes, January 14, lSps. Woodward placed his flask and mould in a cylindrical boiler, in copnection with a piston, arid, by producing steam in the boiler, created a pressure by means. of the piston, whioh compressed the two sectionsot tbe flask, together, at the same time that the steam vulcanized the rubber in the mould. This clp.ady does not anticipate the specifiA,device.described in the patent o(thecomplainant. Hayes produced pressure by steam in a tank or cylindrical compressor, ,the: top of which. by a telescopiq with the body, (made steam tight by could be pressed and driven upward, and on the top of this was placed the flask in such a manner as to receive the pressure by means of a ram connecteq. with the flask by a clamp or otherwise;