,Jln'tegurd to the Veeder patent, there ,ean be no dQubt, .)ye think,.that it'wasLintended to contain not only the idea of a by thtnmspells10n of some flexible material, like leather or cloth, but also bf so thatfby extending the bellrings or suspension points; of the saddle as the seat material became str:etched or slacked, thlt slack might be taken up; and this element of extensibility was obtained through his peculiar extensible springs, or his double spring, if be so called, coupled together in the' center, and capable of being elongated or extended.. The proof shows that idea of a suspensionsaddlewas not new with Veeder; and, without discussing all the pat.. etiufcitedby the defendants as anticipatory of the Veederdevice, iUs sufficient to.say thatin the English parent of Lamplugh and Brown,of July, 1878, an extension seat is shown in at least three differentforl1ls; the spring upon whlch the rear end of the seat is' suspended being movable, so that the,principle of extenRibility .is clearly ,shown in this patent. So in the Shire patent.of May 26, 1879, a suspension seat is shown .'Yith facilities for extending or taking up the slll,ck, ,M.d the Same feature is,shoW1;1 the Fowler patent orMay,J880,andtllelater Fowler patent qfOctQber; 1881. therefore, that the principles QfSIlSpensionand extensibility are bbth: old inihe art, the:only inquiry lef1.is:VI ' hether the, defelldant uses spring shown byt4e,Veeder patent and a simple inspection'of the defendants' saddle shows that, while it may be said to contain the feature of suspensionaIl<lextensibility by means of certain deVices whereby it ,is connectedwitl;:\ .and held to .the backbone of th(l bicycle,. or' seat of the tricycle,. yet itdoeEl not contain the spring shown in the Veeder patent; and as the Veeder patent must be restricted by the disclaimer.to the form of spring shown in that patent, and as suspended saddles, were old before Veed,er, it is suffiqientto that the defendants do 'not use thatJorm of spfipg, and hence do not infringe the Veeder patent. . ,. . . Neither the complainant nor the use the Peters patent as it is shown and described in the they do not 11se with as d,escribed, and shown in the a.nd drawings,-butthecontention on the part of the complainant is that this patent is the'germ, so to speak, of aU the ball-bearing devices whic:l;:l have a provision for lateral adjustment, to.compensate for the wear, and that the shown in tha;t patent are but ar,lOtber form. of baIlor globular,bearings, and thatP-eters was the first to show a means Qflaterally adjusting these bearings, whether the bearing was in"tl;:\e form of.a roller ora ball. The defendants? machines have ball-be;1ring"l in th.e main wheel, the rear wheel,and tbe:treadles, the balls being held in grodves or channels, and there being in all their journal-boxes an ment·for, llliteral adjustment; but defendants contend*at devices for lat· eral adjuBtmentof these bearings old, long before the Petel,'s patent, and the proof'shows tha.t :inl853 Qne.. Qhinnock received: a patent in England on ablm-bearing whic!l had provision for alataral adjustment by means. of a nut, ,while the American patent to .Alcott, in 1870, shows the same feature of adjustability, and by substantially the saml;)
mechanism, fol' a roller-bdarlng.. The American patent to Jewett & Leach, . granted in 1868, also exhi.bits the same feature of qnd that the American Ruse and Vernon, both granted in 1872" which, while not for roller or ball bearings, show beveledbear7 ings with beveled nuts for end wise or lateral adjustment. These are only a few of the many proofs in-the record of devices for lateral adjustment well and publicly known in the art long prior to the advent of this Peters patent. The Alcott patent was for a roller-bearing like Peters', with the ends of the rollel's beveled, so as to fitinto aV-shaped channel or groove; this groove being what may be termed a double bevel,-that is, there was a beveled bearing over the endaof the rollers as well as under them,while Peters only had a bevel under his roller ends; but the principle of the Peters bevels is all shown in this Jewett & Leach patent, including the special arrangement and directions for obtaining the endwise or lateral adjustment. Indeed, we can say from common knowledge that it was old long before the Peters patent was granted to secure endwise or lateral adjustment to take up the end wear upon the common wagon and buggy axle by means of a nut and screw, and the fact that the Peters rollers; were beveled cuts no figure in this matter of lateral adjustment. A plain screw-nut being old to take up the end wear of an ordinary cator buggy axle, we doubt if it required invention to apply it to a beveled roller like Alcott Or Peters, when endwise adjustment to beveled rollers was found desirable. We therefore conclude that there was no novelty in the Peters mode of lateral adjustment covered by his second daim. But, if we had any doubt on the question of novelty, we are clear that the defendants do not infringe this claim, as, in the state of the art, this feature of the Peters patent must be strictly confined to the special devices shown,-that is, to a beveled nut for the adjustment of beveled :rollers,-and cannot be held to cover a lateral adjustment for ball-bearings by means of a nut, which was old and well known when Peters came into the field. Without, therefore, discussing in detail all the patents and devices shown in this record, which it is claimed anticipate the Peters patent when it is converted into a ball-bearing device, if such conversion is deemed allowable, we certainly find in the evidence several much older devices as readily susceptible of such conversion as the Peters, and hence must hold that the defendants, by the use of their adjustable ball-bearing device, do not infringe the Peters patent. The Moran patent, No. 245,542, granted August 9, 1881, is, as already stated, for fixing a rubber ball to the ends ofthe handle of the velocipede. If it can be conceived that there is any patentability, or was any, in August, 1881, in' fixing soft rubber, or any soft and flexiblematerial, to the ends of a velocipede handle for the purpose of preventing it from the hands, or t!1king off the jar of the machine. certainly, that idea is fully anticipated in the English patent of Harrison of July, 1877; and this Moran patent, in its entire scope and means of applying the rubber to the handle, seems to contain nothing new, and nothing which is not shown in the Harrison patent. In his prOVisional specifications Harrison says:
"The fourlilt part of my of a sheath or glove of india rubl)el,", cloth, ,or any other soft material to fit closely, partly or entirely covering the handlEls 'of bicycles or tricycles, whicb may be filled with air. This is to obviate sore hands, to give greater comfort, especially in long journeys. to the hands, which lessens the vibration, and is softer to the hand-grip, and also lessens the concussion in case of the bicycle falling upon the handles. The probability of bent handle-bars and roughed hands is lessened thereby." Harrison gives no specific directions as to how his ru1;Jber ball, or rubber sleeve, is to be fastened upon the handleR, und, of course, any device for that purpose was open to .him. It may be that the peculiar method described in Moran's patent of fastening the rubber to the handle involves patentability; but even if that be so, the defendants do not use that exact method, and it is douhtful whether in any of the claims of the Moran patent these particular modes of fastening the rubber to the handles are specifically included. We must therefore find that the broad claim set up by the complainant for the scope of this Moran patent cannot be sustained; and if the patent can be sustained at all, it is only for the spe. cific devices whioh the defendants do not use. As to the Benham patent, No. 310,776, granted January 13, 1885, the only feature which. it covers is the idea of an umlivided handle-bar, and the means by which this bar is fastened to the steering-head. Undoubtedly the idea of a continuous or undivided steering-bar is as old as the attempt to steer ships by a steering bar fastened to the rudder-post, and ropes or chains leading to the wheel, Or the old-fashioned auger-handle by which the auger is turned in use. . There may some novelty in the means by which Benham locked his ,handle-bar to the steering-head so as to make the same easily removable, and at the salUe time give a firm fastening; but, if there Was auy patentable novelty in the device, it is certainly not infringed by the defendants, who, while they use an undivided handle-bar, have adopted a different method for fastening the same to the steering-head, and do not use either the complainanes open slotted lug and two-sleeved nuts, or their detent. As to the Latta patent, the feature covered by the secpnd .and third claims, which the defendants are charged with infringing,: is the pedalbar coated with rubberlongitudinallygrooved so as to furnish two bear.ing surfaces on opposite sides of the groove. The proof shows that pedalbars coated with rubber were old long before the date of this patent, and that such pedal-bars had been grooved longitudinally. Pedal-bars with rubber surfaces are shown in the English patent to Jackson, of JanU'lry, 1876. They are also shown in the Harrison patent of July, 1877. The latter patent shows round pedal-bars coated with rubber, and grooved longitudinally; and it certainly seems almost a libel upon inventive talent, after a round grooved pedal-bar had been shown, to claim that thereis any invention in changing the form to a polygonal-shaped bar with grooved surfaces. ' of all these patents, when considered upon . The view their merits in the light of the prior art, compels us, therefore, to dismiss this bill for want of equity.
POPE POPE MANUF'G CO.
GORMULLY & JEFFREY MANUF'G CO. et ale . (No. 845.)
Oircuit Oourt, N.
April 30, 1888.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-ASSIGNMENT-SINGLE CLAIM.
It is competent for the patentee to assign a single claim only of the patent, and as to that to reserve to himself a shop-right; and such an assigmnent Cllorries with it to the assignee the right to maintain a bill for an infringement of such claim so assigned.
In Equity. Bill for infringement. .Before GRESI;lAM, Circuit Judge, and BLODGETT, District Judge Coburn Thacher, for complainant. B. F. Thurst8n and Offield « Towle, for respondents.
BLODGETT, J. The bill in this case charges the infringement by defendant of two letters patent owned by the complainant corporation,one being patent.No. 216,371, granted to John Shire, June 3, 1878; for "an improvement in velocipedes;" and the other being patent No. 314:.142, granted March 17, 1885, to Thomas B. Kirkpatrick. for a bicycle saddle. The .Shire patent shows a hlJ,mmock-seated saddle, the seat of the saddle being suspended at either end, and fastened at the rear to what is termed a "hammock block," which block is fastened to what the patentee calls a "fender," a part which, to some extent, takes the place in. his structure of the backbone or reach of the ordinary velocipede; while the forward end of the saddle is fastened by a strap and buckle to a springbar connected with the bifurcated steering-head. The patent contains four claims, and infringement is only charged as to the second claim, which is: "(2) In a velocipede, the adjustable hammock seat, I, substantially as set forth." The element of adjustability seems in this device to be obtained by means of the strap and bucJde by which the hammock selJ,t is fastened atits forward end. The Kirkpatrick patent is said in the specifications to consist "in a pElculiar arrangement of front and rear springs, secured independently to ..the reach or. backbone of the machine, in conseat suspended at the front and rear from said