YALE LOCK MANUP'G
NEW HAVEN SAV. BANK.
ajutage, and to close the same. Here we have the second and remaining section of the stem of valve, and there is before us an illustration of that ingenuity in evasion which is not invention, and does not avoid infringement. The outer ends of the lever and the radial arm are held together by a tube ring or band of fusible alloy, and here we have almost exactly the device by which the complainant connects his wires controlling his supply-valve, and we have also the equivalent of the complaiqatit's device for retaining in position the valves of his distributers. The equidistant bars which connect the deflector to the ajutage, and within which the guarded valve, when. at liberty, freely slides, are provided with screw-threads upon their points of engagement with the top piece, and can be used to adjust the seati!lg of the valve, and prevent leakage. This device is the equivalent of the screw whioh is the lever arm of the complainant's distributer in bis tapped patl?nt No. 2'33,393. The defendant substitutes forthe perforated rose-head distributer described in complainant's patents the circular deflector already referred to. When the valve is opened, the water, "striking the valve, the edge of the gUll.rd,the deflector, and the cage bars, is scattered or projected in a spray in every direction,-upward, downward, and sidewise,-so as to reach every object within the range of its delivery." Tbisdescri'ption, quoted from the of the defendant's patent, accurately describes also what is accomplished by complainant's rose-head distributer, in, whi.ch the water from the distributing pipe; striking the bottom, is scattered or projected through the perforations in a spray "in every direction, upward, downward and sidewise,so as to reach every object within the range of its delivery." The defendant's device is therefore the equivalent of the complainant's. The deflector was known fore the date of complainant's invention. It is shown in the Alderson & Loftus patent No. 225,092, of March 2, 1880. The con<uusion of the court is that the defendant infringes the fQurth, fifth, and sixth claims of complainant's patent No. 233,393, of October 19,1880, but ,does not infringe the first claim of complainant's patent No. 216,821, of June 24,1879; and a decree for an injunction andaecount will be entered accordingly. .
MANUF'G Co. and another'll. NEW HAVEN SAv.,BANK.,
(Oircuit Gourt,D. Oonnecticut. September 10,1887.)
ReisBue:d letters patent No. 8,550, to Samuel A. Little, for improvements in "time-locks," by which the mUlt!ple bolt-work 01 a safe ot vault door could be autoDlll.,tically both doggeq. or lo.cked and unlocked at predetermined times;-the dogging and releasing being caused by the operation of the time mechanism, and the time for locking or unlocking being capable of alters.-
--tion at the will of the operator, without disturbance of the c]ock-work,-contained, inter alia, the following clai,m: "(7) In a time-lock tbe combination * * * of tbe time movements and two adjustable devices: one for determining the time of locking: and the other of unlocking. II The original ters of the same patent contained! among others, the following claim: "(2) '£4,e wheels, Band C, wit:Q tbll depressions, d andf. and tlle projections, e and g.located relatively to each other as described, to increase and diminish the surface of a common cam" i, or depression. h. by rotation on each other. * *", *" Beld, that the seventll claim of the reissue was not an enlargement of the 'second claim of the origiD!tl patent; because the latter should be construed broadly, and should not be confined to "a common cam, " or to a device which was connected with the ,compound wheel in the same way in which the catIl was connected. but Was broad enough to include equivalent means of connection with the dog. 2.
SAME-REJECTION OF CLAIM-SUBBEQ1;JENT, ApPLICATION AND REISSUE.
The third claim of the application for a second reissue of the Little patent fortime-Iocks was for devices ,consisting of "a compound disc. composed of two discs of the same shape and size. placed face to face on a common axis." these two discs or wheels were fastened by a thumbscrew. they formed one wheel or disc. In said third claIm this compound disc was called" two adjustable devices." The patent-office held that the compound, disc constituted but a single adjustable device, or single disc, and rejected the third claim, to which rejection the owners,of the patent assented. Held, thatth6ydid not thereby abandon the right to claim, in a subsequent reissue, a double or compound disc, and obtain a valid patent therefor.
Samuel A. Dwncan, for petitioner.
Edmund Wetmore and Ca'tt.9ten Browne, for respondent.
SHIPMAN, J. On or about April 19, 1881, this court made an interlocutory decree in tbeabove-entitled cause, by wbicb the defendant was enjoined against infringing the first and seventh claims of reissued letters patent No. 8,550, to Sa.muelA,. Little. Lock Manuf'g Co. v. Bank, 19 Blatcbf. 123; 6 Fed Rep. 377. No final decree has ever been made. The original Little patent was dated January 27, 1874, tbe three reissues were respectively granted May 9, 1876, January 8, 1878, and January 21, 1879. The answer of the defendant alleged that tbe original patent was not reissued for the purpose of correcting any supposed defeotive or insufficient specification, but to secure claims 'not warranted by the invention disclosed in the original patent, and that in the several reissues, and particularly in tbe last reissue, claims were inserted which were broader in their scope than tbe invention of the original patent warranted. Tbe original patent and the application for tbe third reissue were introduced in evidence by the defendant. This is a petition by the defendant to vacate the interlocutory decree, and to grant a rehearing, with leave to the petitioner on such rehearing to introduce in evidence certified copies of the file wrappers of tbe several issues of the patent, and certain other documentary evidence, with such amendment of the pleadings as the newly-offered evidence may renderexpedient. The object of the rebearing and of the new evidence is to show that the first a.nd seventh claims of the third reissue were improperly allowed by the commissioner, and are void. , Passing by the consideration of any question in regard to the laches of the defendant, or whether the evidence can properly be considered to
YALE LOCK YANPF'G CO. V. NEW RAVEN SAV. BANK.
be newly <,liscovered, the claims of the several patents which are the subject of controversy upon this Inotion are as follows: Claim 2 of original patent, and claim 5 ofthe first reissue: The wheels, Band C, with the depressions, d and I, and the projections, e and g. located relatively to each other as, described, to increase and diminish the surface of a common cam, i, or depression, h, by rotation on each other, for the purposes described. Claim 3 of first reissue: In a chronometric locking mechanism, the combination, as before set forth, of the clock-work and two'adjustable devices, for determining, respectively, the times oflocking and unlocking. Claim 2: of the l$econd reissue: In a time lock, combination substantially as above set forth, of the time movements and an adjustable device for determining the time of locking. Claim 7 of third reissue: In a time lock, the combination, substantially as above set forth, of the time movements and two adjustable devices, one for determining the time of locking, and tl\'e other of uIilocking. The first claim of the third reiesue is substantially like the seventh. The second' claim of the original, and the corresponding fifth claim of the first reissue, were omitted, by direction of the patent-office, in· the second reissue, by reference to a patent deemed to be anticipatory, and do not appear in the third reissue. . The first and the important question, and one by no means free from difficulty, is whether the seventh claim of the third reissue is an enlargement of the second claim of the original. The defendant's position is that the new claim, which was also the third claim of the first reissue, is for "the combination in a time lock of two adjustable devices, whose function is simply to determine the times of locking and unlocking, without regard to the character of the devices or means by which the locking-dog is held in either its locking or in its retracted position, while in the original claim it is made a necessary element of the combination that there shall be a 'common cam, i,' the function of which is to hold. the dog in its locking position." The defendant's construction of this claim is undoubtedly what was wanted by the draughtsmen when they drew: it, and if that construction is the proper one, the claim was im properly allowed by the patent-office; for if it could ever have been properlyobtained, it was unseasonably applied for, and is therefore invalid. It should not be thus construed, and was not so construed in the opinion of the court, which made the described holding part of the dogging mechanism and its equivalents a part of the claim. Upon the question alleged differences between the Little and the Holmes or of one of Chinnock lock, viz.· that the locking devices are actuated by mechanism of different methods ofoperatiol}, the court said: "I do not regard the latching-gear, and the tripping of the latch that holds the dog, as strictly a mechanical equivalent for the direct action of the upon the dog, but it is plain that, at the date of the Little patent, the Chinnock method of holding andreleasing a dog was a well-known substitute for
..) 'FiDERAL REPORTER.
that the Little mec\1apisJ;Il which performs the same office, and, therefOre, so far as this me<iha:ilical combination: is concerned, the latching-gear and the tripping mechanism are a mechanical equivalent fortheaqtion of the " cam upon the dog. " While theclaim should be made to include mechanism which is the as Little was equivalent of the described 'holding mechanism, of which the first who applied time mechanism to a safe doclr, by locking . could take I at a predetermined period, he should not be confined toanarrow line of equivalents. In the case of Platnti,ffv. Barii, 17 Fed. Rep. 531,which was decided in August, 1883, Judge LoWELL was called upon to determine whether the seventh claim was an undue expansion of the original patent, in ",iew of the decision in MtUer'VdJrass Co., 104U. S. 850. He said: point, 'a diffi'cult one, I decide in conformity with .Judge SHIPMAN'S action, for the reason that in a patent like theoriginaI patent of Little, itwOl'tldbe proper.to construe his second claim somewhat broadly, and so astorp.ach the substituted adjustable devices and ,their conl}ection with the ·dog' in the lock of the defendants in that case, which were. substantially like in question here." The conclqsion is the ownerspf the patent attempted to enlarge it, the seventh qlahn should. be limited to the invention which was dElSCribed and clairneq in. patent, which invention was not confined to "a common cam," or to a device which was connected in which the cam was conwith the Q(}mpound wheel in'the same means of connection nected; bqtwas broad ellough to with the dog. The. defendant further insists that the applicatioll of the patentee for the second·.. reissue containeli a proposed third claim in thefollowing language, which was substantially the tqjrd claim of the first reissue: (3) In a time-lock, thecom·bination, substantially as above set forth, of the time mOVElments and two adj/lstabla devices, for respectively, the times Qf locking anll unlocking. ,-that this claim was' rejected by thEl patent-office, and the patentee acquiesced in such rejection, without appeal, and thereupon the patent was issued, claiming only a single 'adjustable device in the second claim. That claim has been already quoted. From these facts, the defendant says,it results that the claim for two adjustable devices was abandoned and could not he 'resumed ,in the third reissue. The circumstances of this rejection and acquiescence are somewhat peculiar. 'fhe Little invention contained, in addition to the "adjustable devices," what was known as the SU11daydevice, for preventing linlocking during a peri()d greater than 24 hours.. The adjustable devices were, in brief, "a compound disc,composed of two single discs of the same shape and size, placed face. to face' on a common axis, each having an equal portion orits periphery cut away so as to leave in each a depression of the' same form and size as that in the other. When these two discs ()r wheels are fastened togyther' hya thumb-scJ;ew, they for1'none wheel or disc having a depression in its periphery." This compound
SEIBERT CYLINDER OIL CUP CO. V.' NIGHTINGALE.
disc.was called in the proposed third claini Hbvo adjustable devices." The th!,?ught that it should be' called one d'evIct', and therefore rejected the claim. The reason was stated as follows: "The third claim is objectionable, as it appears to be for two devices for locking and unlocking, while applicant showsol1ly one device for locking and unlocking, and ,another'for preventilJg unlocking at a particulariime."Thereupon the of the patent assented, the claim fortvvoadjustable devices Wl1fl; the.clajm for one adjustable!levice .remained, and the second .reissue became very open to attack, because the courts might hold that the patent was in terms for a single device, and should be so construed. It is now insisted that because the patent-offi,ce caned the compound disc a single disc, and the owners of the patent assented, to the name, therefore they abandoned a right to claim a double or compound disc, and can !lave a valid patent only for a single wheel. Such a conclusion rests too entirely upon technicality to merit favor. It may be the outcome of the principle suggested, in Leggett v. Avety,J01 U. S. 256, and confirmed in Shepardv. Carrigan. 116 U. S. 593,6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 493, but such a result would carry the principle to an improper The facts in the case are similar to the special circumstances in Morey v. Lockwood,S Wall. 230,ln consequence of which that decision is not cousideredt9!96 incompatible with the other recent decisions upon the subject of reissues. RusseU v. Dodge, 93 U. S. 460; Eames v. Andrews, 122 U. S.40, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1073. The prayer of the petition is' denied.
BEmERT CYLINDER OIL CuP
(Oircuit Oourt, D;
September 9, 1887.)
In lettel,"s plttent No. 138,243, dated April 29, 1873, issued to Jolm Gates for an improved lubricator, the first claim was upon the "method of feeding oil, consistin&"in delivering the oil from the reservoir up through a body of water inclosed In a glass chamber, and discharging the same through the feedcocks." The second was upon "the combination of an oil chamber with a water chamber, the latter being located over the former, and adapted· to receive oil from it, and deliver the same above the bod;r of water inclosed in it." The 'defendant's lubricator. called the Lunkenhelmer, adopted the device described in the first claim of the Gates patent. but the oil chamber was located at· the side of the water in .the feed-glass, instead of under, as in the second claim. Held an infrinuement, ' 2. SAME-ANTICIPATION-SPECIFICATIONS. The taken out by John Absterdam, 21, 1854, f()r an improved \ubr.icator, neither the specifications Bor drawings disclosihga sightfeed where the oil is delivered up through the water, was not an anticipation of th,e Gates patent; 8. SAME-EVIDENCE. ' Absterdam .testified to having invented and· put· in .operation, 80 years before, a'lubricator ·of the Gates design, and several witnesses testified to
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-IMPROVED LUBRIOATOR-'-INFRINGEMENT.