et al. 'Ii.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York. January 9,1888.)
PATENTS, FOB 1NYEN'l'IONS-!Nv:ENTION-SODA. FOUNTAIN.
Letters pa.tellt No. 149.254 were granted to C. H. Schultz Mar:ch S1, 1874, for improvement in soda fountl,tins. The claim was for making the connection between the bottom and its lining. and the shell and its lining. in a different maunerfrom that adopted by others; both the bottom and the sheH had been ulled before. ,Held that. where the claim was simply for uniting the lining of thE!' bottom and the lining of the shell so as to form an interior integral vessel. innow&y superior to many prior devices, it was not invention, and was not patentable. ' '
InEquity. Bill to restrain infringement of patent. EliZabeth Matthews et al., complainants, sued the Iron-Clad Manufacturing 'Company to restrain the infringement of a patentowned by them. 4rthurv; Briesen, for complainants. ,F.H. Betts, E. a.Webb, and F. MacArthur, for defendant. COX:E, J. The complainants are owners of letters patent No. 149,254, granted to Carl Schultz March 31, 1874, for an improvement in soda fountains. The invention consists in providing a sheet copper or boilerirons6df!. fountain with a bottom composed of suitable material; the inner surface of which is lined 'with tin which overlaps the edge- of the COver and serves to unite it to the tin lining of the shell. In this manner a strong and durable fountain is produced,and the inner surface of th:e shell is protected against the attacks of the chemicals which may be mixed with the effervescent liquids. 'fhe bottom is provided with a downwardly projecting flange and forms a firm base for the fountain. When desired it can be readily removed. The claim is as follows: , "In a vesselfor holding effervescelltliquids, constrncted all herein shown, the bottom, 0, baving a depending tlan'ge, b, in combinatioilwiththe vessel, A, its lining, a, cap, B, and .lining, c, tile depending which is interposed between the flange,b, and lining. a, in the manner and for the purpose specified." The defenses ure non-infringementand lack of patentable novelty. The specification is ambiguous. Two constructions are suggested and maintained by plausible The complainants insist that the pat.antee describes a soldered jOint between the lining of the bottom and the lining of the cyli.nder. The defendant asserts that this construction eliminates the only novel feature of the structure, namely, access to the interior of the \ressel, and that the claim should be construed to cover a pressure joint only If the latter construction is adopted, it is quite evident that the defendant does not infringe, as the linings in its structure are soldered together. But it is thought that the positive statement ,of; the specification that the rim of the cap is to be soldered to the lining is wholly inconsistent with the defendant's theory, and makes a soldered joint a necessary' element of the claim. The question of invention, therefore, is the only one to be determined. Had the patentee been successful in arranging an operative pressure joint at the point in question the
obtained would likely be sufficient to uphold a patent, but when he unites the lining of the bottom the lining of the shell . so that they form .an interior integral vessel, in no way superior to the arrangement shown in many prior devices, he has no longer a place even on the debatable ground whioh divides invention from mechanical skill. The application was twice rejected as showing no new feature, and tM claim was twice amended to meet the objections of the examiners. On the eleventh of March, 1874, the patentee, through his attorneys, wrote to the commissioner as follows: .. We ask simply a claim for the yessel, as an entirety; that is, its contruction and union of parts. each of which, separately, are well known; but, so far as we are aware. never been combined in a vessel such as presented in this application:;' . . obsllrved that the area of invention was, atbest,an exceediuglylimltad one. Not only is it admitted by the patentee that the separate elements of the claim were old, but, in addition to this, the proof shows that many of them had previoqsly been assembled in nearly The most liberal statement that Can be made regarding the Schultz fountain is that he does not make the connection between the bottom with its lining, and the shell with its lining, in precisely the same manner adopted by others. Wherein his. method is .an improvement upon those that preceded it, and wherein it involved invention, cOI;lceding it to be an improvement, it is, indeed, difficult .to perceive. The anteced,ent art left nothing but the narrow space between the, shell and the. depending flange of the bottom in which to If it required brain work to carry down the tin lining into this sPlI:Re,-a flanged bottom of tiI;l being inserted into the tin cylinder precisely as the flange4 bottom of iron is inserted into the iron cylinder, -it is possible thatpat"1Dtability might be presumed. B)lt howoan such a proposition be maintained? Are not suchchanges.the ordinary expedientaofthe workshop? It is so difficult to discover what advantage is obtained by the Shultz arrallgement OVer the many prior fountains, --:7the Wiesebrock fountain, of 1873, for, example,-that it is doubtful if a very skillful mechani,c would have adopted it There is nothing patshown which is beyond the grasp of the ordinary workman. As entee himself says: "The details were so simple that as soon as it was found that the bottom could be put in there were no more details." When it is remembered that it had been demonstrated time and again that a similar bottom could be put into a similar cylinder in analogous structuresIiot only, but also in soda fountains, the full force of this statementwill be appreciated. Therecord fails to show that the complainants have ever made or sold any fountains embodying the patented features. The defendant after a trial of two years abandoned this construction as impracticable. The position of the complainants involves the concession that it was not invention, in 1874, to put a flanged bottom into an iron shell, or into an iron shell washed with tin, or into an iron shell with a. of'sheet tin thereto; neither was it invention to provide a soda fountain with a separable sheet tin lining. . But the contention is
that, for sorne 'occult and unfathomable reason, the inventive faculty was .calledinto being because the flanged bottom happened to be covered with a separable sheet tin lining, and, in that condition, was placed in a shell lined in a similar manner. This position cannot be maintained. ,.It is thought that it is impossible, in view of the repeated admonitions <If the supreme court upon this subject, to sustain the patent. The bill is dismissed.
«(Jircuit (Jourt, N. D. New York. January 11, 1888.)
PATENTS FQR INVENTIONS-:-!>RIOR USE-HARROWS.
Upon the consideration of the evidence in this case; upon the question of alleged prior use, held, that the Willett harrow did not anticipate the Garver harrow, so as to invalidate the patent, '
In Equity. Bill for injunetion. Actiortfor infringement of letters patent by Richard D. Tuttle and Sylvester Garver, defendant. otherscomplainants, Charlefl H:' Duell, for complainants. Daniel L. BentOn, for defendant. CoXE, J.The only question'3 now argued are those relati'(lg to the alleged prior use by Elijah P. Willett at Collins, Erie county, New York. The principal controversy having been so frequently the subject of judicial decision is" quite properly, regarded by both parties as no 'longer open to discussion in the circuit court. Reed V. Chase, 25 Fed. Rep. 94:, and 29 Fed. Rep. 915. The evidence bearing upon the present issue was presented to the court upon a reargument of the principal cause, before Judges J ACKSO:N' and SEVERENS in the Western district' of Michigan, (32 Fed. Rep. 228,) and was fully considered by them. It is unnecessary to enter upon an extended discussion of this testimony, as I concur in what was said regarding it in the' opinion then delivered. The Willett harrow, if it existed, was not the Garver harrow. It follows that there must bell. decree for the complainants.
TuTTLE et al. fl. BAKER. SAME ". EASTERLY. SAME fl. LINGERFELTER. MARTIN. SAME fl. PHILLIPS. SAME fl. STADY. SAME fl. STARKS. WRIGHT.
SAME fl. SAHB fl.
(Oircuit (Jourt, N. D. New York. Oharlea H. Duell, for complainants. Daniel L. Benton, for defendant.
COXE, J. Counsel having stipulated that these causes should abide the event of the action against Sylvester Garver, and the court having directed a decree for the complainants in that cause, it follows that a similar decree should be entered in 'ach of the above-entitled actions.