FEDERAL REPORTER. .
(U. S. v. OJombs, 12 Pet. 72,) and in obedience to this rule the courts have almost uniformly.intetpreted statutes closely resembling the present so as to restrict the copyright to the c()mpleted volume. Davidson v. Wheelock, 27 Fed. Rep. 61; Banks v. Publishing Co., ld. 50; Banks v. Manchester, 23 Fed. Nash v. Lathrop, 142 29,6 N. Rep. 559. The case of Gould v. Banks,53 Conn. 415, 2 Atl., Rep. 886, js relied upon by the complainant. The opinion in that case undoubtedlyasserts the right of the state to copyright the opinions, and interprets the statute as designed to effectuate that right. The observations upon this point, however, were unnecessary to the decision of the case before the court, which was whether a mandamus should be granted to compel the reporter to furnish copies of the opinions whic}1 he was preparing for publication, when the writ would operate to deprive theauthorizedpublishers for the state of the benefit of their contract with the state;' 'this sufficiently' appears fromt.he following language ofthe opinion: 14 If, therefore, we should now direct the reporter to funish copies of the opinions to the petitioners that they may sell them to the public in advance for their own profit, we should" in effect, advise the state to a orea'Ch of contract." . Atfthe defendants have not pirated any 'of the matter originally prepared by the reporter, the motion Jor 'an injunction is denied.
(Girouit Gourt, E. D. Pennsylvania. October 10, 1887.)
PATBNTl:l FOR INvENTIONS-INFRINGEMENT-COMPOSITE PAVEMENTS.
. Letters patent 269,480 were granted for an improvement in composftepavements formed with circular, square, or analogous depressions, equal or nearly equal in diameter in' each direction, and with even or level marA'in on the pavemen,t surface, adapted to afford an additional hold to the feet, and prevent slipping. Held, to possess patentable novelty, and to be infringed by a pavement made of slag, cement. and a concrete of gravel and cement w'itha top dressing of slag and cement, and finished with a roller which made impressions upon the surface.
In Equity. Bill for infringement of letters patent. This is a suit brought against the American Artificial Stone Pavement Company for infringing letters patent No. 269,480, granted December 19, 1882, to Peter Stuart, of Edinburgh, Scotland, for an improvElrnent in composite pavements. The improvement is especially, though not exclusively, for application to sidewalks; and it consists in the formation in surface of pavements of depressions of such a character that in stepping thereon the pressure of the feet will expel the air, causing a partial vacuum, which, supplementing the mechanical effect of the l'oughenedsurfa:ce, will operate to afford an additional hold to the feet
" l:Reportedby C. J3erkeley Taylor, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.
CO. t1. COOPER.
and prevent slipping. .This beneficial effect is greater when .the pave; rij.ent is wet, at which time ,Pavements as ordinarily constructed with smooth or grooved surfaces are more than usually slippery. The claim in the patentis fora composite pavement formed with circular, square, or analogous depressions of equal or nearly equal diameter in each direction, and with even or level margin on the pavement swface, to adapt them to operate in the manner described. By an agreement entered into between Peter Stuart, the patentee, and Matthew Taylor, of New York, the latter became the owner of the right to use the patent in suit in United States and Canada. The said Taylor subsequently assigned the right to use said patent in the city and county of Philadelphia, in the state of Pennsylvania, to the complainant corporation. The prayers of the bill were for an injunction and an account. George J, Harding, William Henry Smith, and George Harding, for complainant. Heetnr P. Fenton, for respondent. PER CURIAM. The evidence does not satisfy us that the complainant's contrivance-to avoid the danger of slipping on smooth surfaced composite pavements was anticipated, nor that it lacked patentable novelty. In this respect the case is doubtless near the line, and calculated to inspire doubt. To create doubt, however, is not suffici to overthrow the nt presumption arising from the patent; the evidence should be satisfactorily convincing. Nor is it clear that this contrivance is shown by the record of complainant's former patent for composite pavements. That patent was exclusively for other elements than the face. It is very doubtful whether the ideas embraced in. this contrivance could 'have been' from the drawing of the former patent, and it is not any hint of them is to be found elsewhere in the record. If this were otherwise, however, the result would be the same, as appears from McMillan v. Reese, 1 Fell. Rep. 722, and other cases to the same effect, preceding and following it. . A decree must therefore be entered for an account, and an injunction, with costs.
NEW JERSEY MANUF'G
(Circuit Oourt, D NeLD Jera6g.
January 10, 1888.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-PATENTABILITy-NOVELTy-METALLIC BUTTONS;
The first claim of letters patents, No. 216,973, of July 1, 1879, Charles Radcliff, for "improvement in metallic buttons" is as follows: "A metallio button consisting of two disks, a crown and bottom piece. in combination with a wire placed between them, so formed as ,tq tit and strengthen the periphery of said disks, and to act as the bar for the thread, substantially as and for the purpose described." Held, void for want'Of novelty; buttons fo'rmed of an upper and lower disk, with an intermediate wire thread-bar. viz., the glove button, the Woodbury button. the Hornish button,. the Fernald button, and the Thalheimer button, having been old at the date of the patent"
SAME.....W Alii oFrnvENTION"
In view O,ft)J.e prior IItate of the art" 8sevidenced bythll glove button and the Waadbur;y, Harnish. Fernald. a.nd Thalheimer buttons, letters patent No; 216,978, of -July: 1,1879, to Charles ;Radcliff, for "improvement in metallic fot: Radcliff hl!lving simply straight: buttons, ened the bar. of the old glove .button, and possibly exercised greater care in making its length correspond 'wlUl'the. diameter of the disks, or straightened the bar of' 'the WoodbutybuttoD'&ild ,added a covering as suggested by the patent. "
BUTJ,ER, J. The suit is for infringement of letters patent No. 216,-; 973, 1879,,;tpCharles Radcliff;:for "improvement in metallic buttons." The defense is-Firat, want of patentablenoveltyj'second, nori-infringement. The specifications and claims of the patent, are as follows:
Be it· known that I, OhaTlesRadcliff, ofthe city of 'Newark, county of Essex, and state of New Jersey,have' inYented a new andusefill improvement in roetalJic buttons, of which the following is aspecificatiop: ,The invention reto buttons which ar,estamped of metal sheets with dies. Heretofore have been made.eitller of one piece of metal, or of two hollow metallic disks joined together by, bending the edge of one disk oVer the other. " 'fhe disadvantage of the forinel' method was the weight of the button. and of tbe latter method its weakness. When such buttons were perforated, two semicircular eyes were usually made in the center of the button, leaving part of tbel!letal between tb,emtQ form a bar for the thread. The edges of this bar had Ilo tendency.to cut:the, thread. My invention consists in insert,between tl)e'dIsks of a perforated metallic button a strengthening piece' made of wire so formed I,>t bent as to accurately fit the inside edge of the smaller disk, and' forming a transverse bar across its diameter, said bat passing across the perforations in the center of the disks, and forming the bar for the thread; and the ends of ,the wire, which fit the' inner. 'edge of the disk, give strength to the periphery of the button. By this meanS I form a very strong l.md light button, and .the trans,verse bllr, being round and smooth, will hot cut the thread, In the accompanying drawings, A. and R. Figs. 1,2. and 3 are the metallic disks. perforated with one large round hole in each disk, instead of two semicircular ones, or several small round ones, as is usually the case. C, E, F, are different forms of the transverse thread-bar. I do not confine myself to any particular form of this transverse bar. The ends of the bar may.be made of any suitable form from a bar perfectly straight through the shapes shown at E and C up to that shown at F, or it may be combined with a circular riug.wl,li,cJ,J. fits theinner edge of the disk. All these are obvious modifications of the same idea. I myself prefer the form shown at C·· :w,hichfurnishes all t,hereqU,.iSite, strength, combined with cheapness, o( tqanllfacture. In Figs. 1 and 2:tJ1e disks are shown before the edges are bent oY-er to clasp the disks together.. , D; Fig. 2, is aside view of the completed button, and Fig. 3, gives, a top and, bottom view of the completed button. Whatlclaimls; (1) A l!l(ltItUk';buttouconsisting of two disks, a croWn'and between them, So formed as pqttpmpiece, to fit and strengthen theperiphe?-"y of saiddisks. and to aetas ,the bar. fW; the tbread,lilubstantially,as and for ,the purpose deScribed. (2) Ina metallic.button cousistingof two disks joined ,together, a transverse bar of round wire,
NEW JERSEY MANUff'G 'CO.'". COOPER.
substantiallyJn the shape sttown ';1tC,'substantially as and for the 'purpose described. . The infiiJ;lgementcharged is ofthefirst claim only. Does'thebutton there describedembra08! patentable novelty? It is "a'metallic bUttNn, consisting of two disks, a crawn' and bottom piece, in combination with a wire placed between them, so formed as to fit and strengthentheperiphery of said disks, and to aetas the bar for the thread." The important element of this combination-is the wire bar, whoa,e office is to strengthen the periphery, and afford a thread-hold; nothing !noreis claimed for it. The .former state of the art is illustrated \)y the 'glove button,the Woadbury button, the Hornish button, and the Fernald button. We say nothing at present of Thalheimer's. Buttons fornied of an upper and lower disk, with an intermediate-wire thread-bar, were .old at the date of the patent. The bar was bent so that its center pro . jectf'd through the perforation in the lower disk, and formed a shank. In some instances it was held in place by the pressure of the disksalone( and in others was attached to thick, stiff paper, which received the preasure. In someinstances, the ends of the bar extended to the periphery 'of the disks, and inothers,especially where attached to paper, it wao;shorter; the paper, when used being cut to fit the disks. The complain ant endeavors to' distinguish his button from these, by pointing/ to thf fact that in them the bar was bent at the center, while in his it is straight, and to the difference in its effect upon the periphery of the disks. We do not think the dissimilarity in the bar at the center, is important. It was formerly bent to afford greater convenience in applying the thread. Whether bent or straight, the button is essentially the same. Furtherdoes not call for a straight bar at the center, and cermore, the tainlycovers a crooked one. If such had not previously been employed, the complainant would undoubtedly regard its use aSl1n infringement. To say that such buttons belong to a different class, that they are shank buttons, and the others bar buttons, signifies nothing material to the quiry. Nor do we see anything important in the alleged difference in effect upon the periphery. In the glove button before us the ends fit the disks as closely as in that of the complainant, and strengthen the periphery sufficiently for practical purposes.' It might llot bear as much pressure as the complainant's at the ends of the wire; but the difference is only in degree, and is therefore immaterial. (It is indeed difficult to .see how the complainant's straight bar-shown in Fig. E of bis draughtis of any essential value in strengthening the periphery. Of course it adds t>trength at the point of contact, but as this leaves probably ninetenths of the entire extent unsupported" itcan beoflittle importance.) The Hornish and Fernald buttons, with their intermediate paper disband attached wire bars, also have the disk support. It may not bear great pressure, but it extends to the entire circumference. The support here, it js true, is not derived from the wire alone. The plaintiff, cannot, howrely upon this to distinguish the button from his, for the same dif.. ference exists in the respondents' button, the alleged infringement. The Woodbury button (as shown by the draught, and the exhibit" Wol'd-
bury Button") .has quite as good a' periphery support as the complainant's. Indeed, when the wire constituting the thread-bar and periphery of this button is inclosed.within the disks, it is difficult, i£,not impossible, .00 distinguish it from the complainant's, even in form, except that the ba.r is bent at which, as we have seen, is immaterial. Woodbury's patent conteI),lplates and suggests a covering for the wire, and course may be of the metaJlic disks then in use, or other lpaterial. 'the Thalheimer button is identical with the complainant's even in form,its thread.bar is straight, and the ends fitted to the periphery.Wl)ile Mr. Thalheimer testifies very positively to its manufacture prior to the date of. complainant's patent, a question is raised raspectinghisaccuracy. The view we entertain rE-nders a decision of this question unnecessary. If the complainant was not actually anticipated, it is very clear, we think, that what be did does not embrace invention. He simply straightened the bar of the old glove button, and possiblyexercised greater care. to make its length correspond with the diameter of the disks, or straightened the bar of the Woodbury button, and added a covering, as suggested by that patent. The testimony and argumeLt directed to the points of cheapness, lightness, and strength (elsewhere> than at the periphery) are aside of the question involved.. As we bold the claim to be invalid, the question of infringement need not be considered. The bill must be dismissed with costs.
t1. ARLING'l'ON MANUF'G
.(Clirouit Oourt, .D. N611J Jer8ell. January 10, 1888.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-ACTIONS FOR INFRINGEMENT-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.
Defendant corporation did not deny Infringement, but claimed that it had ceased to infringe before bill filed, and did not intend to renew the use of the infringln/!, machine which still remained in its possession. Held,the patent havll)g been adjudicated to be valid, that a preliminary Injunction should be granted.
In Equity. Bill for infringement of letters patent No. 199,908, of February 5, 1878, to John W. Hyatt, assignor to the Celluloid Manufacturing Company, for the manufacture of celluloid and other plastic On motion for preliminary injunction. Rowland Cox, for the motion. John R. Bennett, contra.
WAJ,ES, J. The patent has been held to be valid. l Thedefendant admits, or at least does not deny, infringement, but claims tbat it had ceased to infringe before the bill was filed, and does not intend to renew
III Fed. Rep. 904.