adjudged. It is true the defendantisfOtlnd 'guilty of violating the tract, but it is doubtful if the violation is of such a 'Willful and aggravated character as to justify a d.ecree of forfeiture. The contract contains no provision to the effect that incase of its breach by either party the other should have the option to declare it terminated; and if the rights of the complainant can be sufficiently guarded in the decreeJ-as we think they can,-and the contract be continued in force, we are of the opinion that course should be pursued. A decree will be entered restraining the defendants during the whole period of 20 years from the fifteenth day of February, 1879, from shipping or selling any water from the spring of the defendant Lockwood, as or under the name of "Clysmic Water," and from in any manner applying Or using the word "Clysmic," during that period, in the sale of any water, except that derived from the spring of the complainant. Also, that the complainant .recover damages against the defendant Lockwood by reason of the water shipped and sold from the defendant's spring as "Clysmic Water," which are assessed at $622.50, this being tqeamount which thecomplainarit would have received, if the same had 1;>een shipped from her spring. The decree will also provide that, in case of further violations of the contract or breaches of duty by the defendant Lockwood, the complainant will have leave by supplemental bill, or by original bill to be hereafter filed, as she may elect, to apply for relief in that behalf. Mr. Justice HARLAN sat with the distrjdt judge on the hearing of this case, and concurred in the foregoing opinion.
HANEY MANUF'GCO. and another.
(Jo.urt, 8. D. Michigan,
PATENTS FOR' OOENTIONS-SCHOOL-DESKB-Ll!:TTERS PATENT TlCIPATlON.
The secon.d claimpf patent No. 123,797, dated February 25,1872, and granted toWilliaro A. Slaymaker fur an improvement in school-desks, "for the sElat described, pivoted at the apex of the triangle formed by its arms, and adapted to swing on its pivot back beneath the desk, as described, "111 anticipated by prior patents. . . ,
BilHn Equity for Infringement of Patent. Action for infringement ofletters patent No. 123,797, dated February 25, ,1872, and granted to William A. Slaymaker for an improvement in The second claim of l!lllid patent was for "the seat described. pivoted at the apex of the triangle formed by itsarms.ll<lfd adapted to swing on its pivat back benell.th the desk; as described." . D&. that the. patent lInd by prior
tii>H. W. White, January 14, 1868; to Isaac Newton Pierce, December 5, 1871; to C. W. Sherwood, November 6, 1866; to A. Chandler, September 7,1869; and toW. H. Soper, August 17, 1869. Defendants mad A the following claims as to these patents: The patent to H. W. White !ihows a seat-frame in the shape of an X, pivoted at its lower front, and adapted to fold beneath the desk. The patent to Isaac Newton Pierce shows a seat supported by a triangular-shaped block., The Sherwood and Chandler patents resemble the Pierce patent. The Soper patent shows a seat, folding beneath the desk. Oharle8 J. Hunt, for complainant. This seat differs from any preVIOUS one in the place where it was pivoted, and the manner in which it swung out of the way. All prior seats folded up against thedeskj but this goes under the desk, and is as much out of the way as though it had been a drawer. and was closed. The manner and place of pivoting,the seat produces a ne\\, result. A slight backward pressure on the fI'ont of ,the seat moved the seat, and then seat, impelled by its own weight;fell under the desk, and, left a free passage-way. Wben it was necessary to have the seat out in place. a slight downward pressure on the front of the 'brought it forward, and it was ready for use.. Thus the pupil, in taking 'his seat, presses down the front of the seat, and the seat falls forward, and is ready for use. When he rises, a slight movement of his leg sends the seat back, under the desk. and out of the way of anyone who wishes, to pass between tpe rows of desks. This is a new result. and is sufficient of itself to sustain the patent. Had he pivoted the seat by arms on the upper side, the seat would hang so that the center of gravity would be directly under the point of pivot, and the Mat wou:Id, iuthe normal position, be half under and half out from the desk; and, if the pupil should draw it entirely out, it would SWing back when he took his hand off of it, before he sat down, and it would be sure to swing back as soon as he relieved it of his weight. But when pivoted below the seat, as in the patent, the cent,e,r of gravity being above the point of pivot, the law that a body falls over when the center of gravity passes beyond the base applies, and the bolt which supports the seat is just the pivot, and, when the center of has passed beyond a perpendicular line erected on the pivot, the seat by its own gravity falls forward or back until arrested by the stops on the seat-frame, and remains in that position until changed by the person or who wishE'S to occupy, the seat. By this construction of the seat, the change from one position to the other is made without friction or: noise. This noiselel!s movement of the seat is a great desideratum in all school-rooms, where any noise is an annoyance to the whole school, and particularly to the teacher and the class which is reciting. This seat is . egmiuya.daPt,ed to, theaters and ,other public halls, where spectators come and . go duting the exhibition. Thll!! the invention has been shown to be of great value, liud' that'anew result has been produced by means not before used for this or any analogous purpose. The patents iutroduced in evidence by the defendants all fold the seat ,up against the desk,' and do not produce the same result as the Slaymaker patent. They dorlot anticipate the Slaymaker patent, for they do not show the same device, nor anything that can by allY possibility produce the same result. , If they!'re intr9duced to show the state of the art, they do not show any device like seat, used for that or any analogous purpose, or even for any pu,rpose ,whatever. In fact, they show that the Slaymaker invention was a new and:#dical departure in the construction of school desks and seats, andthaL·thEhresult pro<lucedbybis invention was a new one, and by new
PERKINS ",,; HANEY· MANUF'G CO.
means. The Slaymaker patent and the Pierce patent were both before the patent-office at the same time, and that is a proof that'the two were considered as different inventions by the patent-office, and is a strong proof that the one does not infringe the other. Taggart &: Denison, for defendants. The several patents referred to in the answer as anticipations are anticipations of the broad construction put on the Slaymaker patent by the complainant, rather than anticipations of the limited claim which· we believe to be the true construction of the patent. The triangular frame was not a novelty in itself, and the folding of the seat beneath the desk was not a novelty at the date of the Slaymaker patent, as will be seen reference to the several patents referred to. .. ., H. W. White Patent. This patent was issued January 14, 1868. , It shows 3l3eat-frame in the shape of an X, pivoted at its lower front foot, and adapted to fold beneath the desk. The seat is shown by D; its arms, by C, C," ,The method of folding the seat beneath the desk is fully seen by examining Figs. 1 and 2. ,The inventor says, "If desired, the chair,(seat,) D, may ered and turned back under the desk, A." This turns the seat entirely beneath the desk, A, as ill readily seen. The hinge or point of turning is upon the legs of the desk, as is the case in the Slaymaker invention. :£his invention of White, whileit differs much in construction from the Slaymaker device, in function and operation reSembles it much more closelY than the Haney model. It is pivoted or hinged near the floor; there is no i:;train on the pivot; the shaking of the seat will not move the desk, etc. [saar; Newton Pierce Patent. This patent was issued December 5,1871. Application was filed before Slaymaker's. The seat is supported by a triangular-shaped block. The pivot is located similar to the pivot in the Haney model. The seat is placed above the frame. In bqth the Pierce device: and the Haney model, the seat, in fact, does not fold beneath the desk. C. i¥". Sherwood Patent. Patented November 6, 18.66. Is similar to the Pielce invention, but differing slightly in construction. A. Chandler Patent. This patent was issued September 7, 1869. Shows a seat folding like the Pierce seat. w: H. Soper Patent. Dated August 17, 1869. The drawing shows a seat that folds beneath the back as much if not more than does the seat in the Haney model. See form of seat as illustrated in the cuts of Fig. 1. , , The other exhibits show various methods of constructing folding seats, leaving very little invention to Mr. Slaymaker. ' ..
I am of. opinion, in this case, that so much of the
tel' covered by the second claim of the complainant's patent as is'in-
volved in the seat manufactured by the defendants, namely, asea't turning upon a pivot so as to be thrown back and under, or partly;under, the back, was not new, hut had been anticipated by former patents and manufacture. I fthat is all there is of thesecomfelaim, !ls' construed in connection with the specifIcations arid other claims, it is irtvalid,because it had already been anticipated in its substantial featurei:;. - At all events, it is all itthat the defendant's construction emploJ'S' An order will be dismissing the bill.
JENKINS and another SAME
'(Circuit Oourt, D. Ma88aohu8,eea. September 20.1887.)
PATlllNTS FOR INVENTIONS-OLAtMS IN REISSUE-SUBCOMBINATIONS.
'Subcombinations may be claimed in a reissue of letters patent. if shown in the 'original as performing the same function. even though (llaimed only as a pa,t ofa largllr combination. '
is applied for less than six months after the grant of the originalpatElUt, in which combinations are described which are found in the ori/;\'ina,J 'patent, being merely sUbcombinations of the combination therein de· scrib!ld; such reissue will not be held void simply for the absence of a show' ing of, inadvertence or mistake. '
SAMlll-BROADER OLAIMS IN RE1SSUE.
Reissued letters patent. granted December 24, 1872"to J Hyslop. Jr.· for an improve:cnent in machines for making shoe-sbanks, described an arrangement!>f a fixed bending-die for bending a plate to form the middle curve of the' apd actuating devices therefor, in a machine for cutting and punch· ing' said 'blanks. so as to receive the blanks from said, cutting devices, and bend and']dlscharge them'automatically. Reissue of April 0, 1878, described, ,in sucli'lL machine, a plate, a convex-faced bender-plate, and 0. concave face, in combination. Held, that the latter description. embracing fewer elements thalltheJ:ormer, was broader in its claims. and the reissue so far void.! Reissulld,letters patent, granted to J. Hyslop, Jr." December 24, 1872, for an improvement in machines for making shoe-shanks, described bending-dies constructed and arranged to form the middle bend and the reverse bends by one and'th'e' saine operatioli of, tne dies; Reissue of April 0, 1878, claimed a fixed beIidhig-die, movable bending-die, and projections whereby the middle and reverse bends of the shoe-shank are formed. Held that, while the sec· ond claim was mOre specific, it described the same and was not broader than the first.
Rep. 684, and note.
'Concerning the validity of reissues of letters patent, see .Asmus v. Alden, 27 Fed.