said act of June 9, 1874, repealed the latter; and the Revised Statutes expressly answer this qUllStiollin, the negative. Section 5601, Rev. St., is in the following language: "The enactment of theaaid revision is not to affect or tepeal any act of congress passed since the 1st day of December, one thousand eight hundred and all that date are to have full effect as, and if passed"a#er the enactment ()fthisrevlsion; and so far as, such acts vary ill fOrm, or, conflict with any provision contained in said revision, are to have effect: as subsequent statutes, and as repealing any portion of the revision in. . coDsistenttherewith. " There can be but one possible put upon this provision. and; ,that is, that whate:ver there is in the revision taken from the shipping commissioners' act,that is inconfiict with the'said aot of June 9, 1874, is repealed. The Revised Statutes are made to take ·effect from December 31, 1883, and as if passed on that day, "and all other acts passed after that date, altho.ugh inJact passed. before the .Revised Statutes, are to be treated and enforced as subsequent statutes,' repealing, t4e.Revised Statutes, so far as they are inconsistent therewith. 'i In fe Publishing <:;:>., 3 Sawy. 616, 617. I so held, immediately after the passage of the act of in the case of ,a Sea1nltU wiba was convicted a most atroand brutal assault .and battery upo,n the of a coasting vessel, underthEl sixth clause, of section St. After conviction, and beforefi\entence, the statllte of June came,to hand,and I was oblige<;i judgmeht on the ground that the provision had ceased to. betwplicable, to that, of coasting vessels before the of the off'ens,e. Other courts, so. far as I am aware, haveumformly taken the SllIQe of the statute. .0. S.v. Bain, 5 Fed. Rep. 192; U. S. v. E,ep.141; Burdett v. Williams, 27 Fed. Rep. 117; U. BUA;kley.3J: Fed. Rep. 805;U. S. v. 'J!lte Grace Lothrop, 95 U. S. 532. . For given, act charge<i does not constitute an offense under. the statutes of the United States, and the information must be quashed, and ,it is so ordered,.
tI. MONARC:H: PARLOR SLEEPING CAR
Co. ' ·
(Oircuit Oourt; S.D. NeuJYork.:March 7, 1888.)
1.'PATENT8 FOR INVENTIONs-NOVELTy-8LEEPING CARS-SIGNAL ,ApPARATUS.,
Theileventh clahn of llltters patent No. 122,622, issued January 9, 1872,to William D Mann, for an improvement in compartment railway cars, ing an. arrangement of wire signal bells or apparatus to extend from each compartment to the porter's room, in view of the fact that such signals,were in ,common u.se in hotels, on stear,n.-boats, and e]sewl!.ere prior to the grallt.Qf . tI::e letters patent, is void for want of novelty, as the mere change of location is not patentable. . " , ,
Patent No. 327,289, granted September 29,1885, to William D. Mann. for an iciproved llystem and apparatus for ventilatin'g railway ears, providing the car
HANN'S BOUDOIR CAR.,co.v;:MONARCH PARLOR SLEEPING CAR CO.
, with aneven,llupplJ and Ejxhaust of fresh warm air. from which all impllriti"s.h\,ve been removed., without danger of draft to the seventh clalm of which delll::ribesa, combination, of a.fresh,air conduit. a dust· arrester, 'ac16set, aM a flue runnIng from the closet through 'the car, the dustarrester consisting of a water-tank. which 'Catches the large cinders and' par. ticles of, dust. lined with excelsior,which completes the filtering process. is valid; and infringed by a combInation which differs only:in using a dust-arrester consisting of a box of wire netting filled with wet sponges.
In Equity. On bill for injunction. Bill fOf injunction by Mann's Boudoir Car Company to restrain the Monarch Parlor Sleeping Car Company from infringement of pat-, ent granted William D. Mann for an improvement in compartment cars for railways,and an improved system and apparatus for ventilating railway cars. LowisW. Prost and Charles G. OJe, for complainant. John L. S. Roberta, for defendant. COXE, J. The bill alleges the infringement of three letters patent granted to William D. Mann, and now owned by the complainant. The first of these patents, No. 122,622, dated January 9, 1872, is for animprovement in compartment cars for railways. The drawings and specificationdescribe a car constructed on the European model, with isolated compartments, side doors, and a running board for attendants extending entirely around the car. At the end of the car is the porter's room, which is connected with each compartment by speaking-tubes and wire signal-bells. A passenger desiring to communicate with the porter pulls the bell levet in his compartment and jingles a bell in the portl'lr's compartment. The seventh claim, which alone is involved, is in these words: "(7) The arrangement of the bells or signal apparatus. to extend from each of the compartments to tbe porter's room, substantially as sbown and de, scribed," The defenses are non-infringement and lack of patentable novelty. The defendant's cars are known as parlor sleeping cars and are built upon the American plan, substantially like the well-known Pullman cars. An electric push button is placed near each seat, so that the passengers indicatOr located at the can summon the porter by means of a bell end of the car. The complainant admits that, prior to the alleged invention, lever pull-bells, like those shown in the drawings and specification, had been used in private houses and in hotels. They had also been uSed in not only to enable the helmsma.n to communicate with the engineer, but also to enable the passengers to sumJ;llon the vessel's attendants, a bell-pull placed in each state-room for that purpose. The record further shows that the idea of an electrical apparatus, by means of which the pal;:sengers in a railway car could signal the trainman, was also old, for in the patent granted to Prud'homme in March', 1871, the inventor says: "A button or knob may be put, if desired, in passengers' compartment. in order to a.llow in oertain cases the latter to call. ... ... · A knob or com-
tnunicator, placed within a passenger's carriage, and put in communication with both wires passing underneath, would also cause a ringing at both ends of a train, and thus put the. passengers of a compartment in communication with the attendants of said train." The patentee appears to ];lave been the first to employ a wire signalbell to summon a servant in a railway cari but can it be that it required an exercise of the inventive faculties to do this, in view of the fact that the identical apparatus had previously been used for the identical purpose in dwelling-houses, hotels, and steam-boats,? The additional fact should also be remembered that similar signaling appliances had been used in horse cars and in railway cars. The only novel feature that can by the most liberal construction be discovered, is the location of the apparatus in railway cars. The operation is the same; the result is the same. If it be invention to place a bell in a passenger car, then each successive applicant who finds a new situation for such a bell is entitled to the rewards of an inventor. If this claim is held to be valid, with what consistency could a patent be refused to a person who, for the first time, should connect in a similar manner a row of bath-houses at the sea-side, or the boxes in a theatre, or the tables in a restaurant? To remove a bell from the state-room of a passenger steamer, and place it in the stateroom of a passenger car, requires no more of the inventive faculty than to take a steam-whistle from a tug-boat and place it on a woolen mill, -no more than to place a doctor's speaking-tube at the front door of a lawyer. The supreme court has, over and over again decided that it was not invention to find a new place for an old device without change in the result, or in the manner of operation. See cases cited in Electric Co. v. Alarm 00.,33 Fed. Rep. 254. But even if the foregoing views are incorrect, it is quite clear, in view of the state of the art and the minute description of the specification, that the claim must be confined, to some extent at least, to the mechanism and arrangement disclosed. It would be a most unwarranted expansion of the claim to give it the broad construction contended for by the complainant, which would bring within its scope every mechanical contrivance by which the porter in a railway car is summoned by the passengers. The questions arising under letters patent No. 188,991, granted to William D. Mann, January 8, 1878, were, practically, disposed of on the argument. The defendant discontinued the use of the reversible flap, covered by the claim in question, before the two cars, which had the infringing couches, were piaoed at the disposal of the public. ,The only serious objection urged by the defendant's counsel against a decree for an injunction being given to the complainant upon the third claim, was that it might affect the question of costs. The disposition which is made of the other patents will remove this objection. The third patent in suit, No. 327,289, was granted to William D. Mann September 29, 1885, for an improved system and apparatus for ventilating railway cars. The object sought to be accomplished by the inventor, so far as this controversy is concerned, was to provide the car with an even supply and exhaust of fresh warm air, from which all dust
VANN'S BOUDOIR CAR 00. V. MONARCH PARLOR SLEEPING CAR 00.
and impurities have been removed, without danger of draft to the passengers. The combination which is described as producing this result consists of a fresh-air conduit, a dust-arrester, a closet which receives the air, a delivery flue running from the closet through the car, a heater within tho air-closet, and heater pipes extending through the delivery flue to warm the air. The seventh is the only claim alleged to be infringed. It is as follows: "(7) In a railway-car, a fresh-air conduit, a dust-arrester, a closet, and a tIue running from the closet through the car, and provided with registers. as described, in combination with a heater located within said closet. and heatingpipes located within said 1Iue, aU constructed and arranged as and for the purposes set forth." The defenses are, as before, lack of invention and non-infringement. None of the prior patents show the combination of this claim. The separate elements were old, but no one, before Col. Mann, had assembled them as in the patent; no one had accomplished a result so satisfactory. Every doubt should be resolved in favor of the patent, especially when it is remembered that the patentee has introduced a valuable and practical improvement in car ventilation, as fully demonstrated by the experiments made in June last in the presence of the board of railroad commissioners of this state. Does the defendant infringe? That the combination used by the defendant has all the elements of the claim, or equivalents therefor, and that they perform substantially the same functions, is sufficiently clear. There are differences of construction between this and the complainant's apparatus, but they are matters of detail which do not change the essential features of the patented combination. For instance, the dust-arrester shown in the drawings and specification consists of a water-tank which catches the larger cinders and particles of dust, and a body of wet" excelsior," or similar material, through which the air is forced to complete the filtering process. In the defendant's car the air is forced thropgh a box of wire netting filled with mDistened sponges. This is the most important variation, and though at first sight it may seem substantinl, it is thought there is great force in the suggestion that the inventor did not intend to limit himself, in this claim, to the precise form of dust-arrester shown, for the reason that he employs the indefinite article in the expression "a dust-arrester," and also for the reason that he is careful to specifically cover the "dust-arresting tank" in other claims. The claim in controversy is for a combination. The defendant has appropriated the combination, except that one element thereof, the dust-arrester, is not made precisely after the pattern of the dust-arrester of the patent. But it performs the same functions and, in all essential particulars, it is the same. The differences in the construction of the closet and heater are not material. The question of infringement is a perplexing one; and the conclusion that the defendant infringes has been reached with considerable hesitation. The rule which sustains th,e complainant's position is clearly stated in Machine <lI. v. Murphy, 97 U. S. 120, 125, as follows:
.. form is of the invention. it bas but little weight in the decision of an ,tpe correct rule being that. in determining the question of court. or jurY, case may be, are not to judge about diffe'r.ences by the namE's of things, but are to look at the machine's or tht'ifi:iev8raldevicE's Of elements in the light of wha:t they do, or what office or.functjon they pE'rform,· and how they perform it; .andtQflnd that one thing is substantially the same as another, if it performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way, to obtain the same result, always bearing in mind that devices in a patented machine are ,different, in thl;l sense qf: the patent law,· when they perform differ8utfunctions or in a different way, SUbstantially different rosult." See, Itlso, CantreU v. WaUick,U7U. S.689, 6 Sup. Ct. 'Rep. 970; Loom 00. 'I. Higgins, 105U. S. 580, 598; Winans v. Denmead, 15 How. 840; Sargent v. Larned, 2 Curt. 340. . The complainant is entitled. to a decree for aJ;l inJunction upon the third claim ofletters patent No., 1$8,991, and for an injunction and an accounting on the seventh claIm of letters patent No. 327 ,289; .but, as the defendant has been successf,l,:ll u,pon letters patent No. 122,622, the decree mustbewithoutcosts. Trwp Co. v. Feltho'USen, 22 Blatchf. 169, 20 Fed. Rep. 63,3.
(Oircuit Oourt, D. Oonnecticut. March 1, 1888.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-ANTICIPATION MINCING MEAT.
BY PRIOR PATENTS-MACHINES
Letters patent No. 271,898, issued January 80,1883, to John G. Baker, for a machine for mincing meat. which combines a casing corrugated by longitudinal grooves with retaining shoulders, a perforated plate, a knife, operating against the inner face of the plate, and a forcing screw, the thread of which extends to and rotates with the knife, the cutting action being produced by the operation of the knife on,tpe'perforated plate, are not anticipated by the Miles patents of 1861 and 1864, which combine a case having spiral grooves near the hopper end, then longitudirial grooves, Q rotating shaft with spiral blades. and a perforated plate against which the ends of the sI>irals revolve, in,which the principal part of the cutting is done by the revolving spiral blades in the body of the machine.
... SAME-By ENGLISH PATENT.
Letters patent No. 271,B98,for a machine for mincing meat, describing a combination consisting of a casing corrugated by longitudinal grooves with retaining shoulders, a perfor.ated plate, a knife, operating against the inner face of the plate. and a forcing screw, the thread of which extends to and rotates with the knife, thecuttiDg action being produced by the operation of the knife on the perforated plate, is not anticipated by the Dollman English patent which combines. a case with a series of horizontal knives at the hOPPllr end, with a series of screw-like blades on a hollow shMt passing throug-h them, the other end of the shaft, carrying an Archimedean screw, the casetermina· ting with, a perforated plate through which a llolid shaft passes and carries on the outside radial cuttlD'g blade's working on the perforated plate, the meat being cut into small pieces by being carried by the screw-like blades against the horizontal knives. and theo.cecarried by the screw to the end of the case, wherl! it is forced through the perforated plate.
The first, second, and sixth claim of letters patent No. 211,398, issued to John G. Baker January 80, 1888, for a machine for mincing meat, which com·