Letters patent No. 242,497, for an improvement in cultivators, the object of which is to ,assist the operator in raising the beams and shovels by the application of springs, accomplished br the combination of a wheeled frame to which are attached vertically-movIng beams, and lifting springs so attached that a greater lifting effect is produced upon the beam as the same is raised than when depressed, is a novel and useful invention, and not anticipated by the patent to H. N. Dalton, in 1869. for the combination of a coiled or other sprinlt with the axle and frame of a gang-plow in such a way that the gang· plow might be raised while running, nor by the patent for an S·shaped spring, Itfanted to W. P Brown, for the purpose of exerting a lifting effect.ullon the cultivator beam '.he structure and operation of the last two devices beingdif· ferent, and the lifting effect decreasing as the beam is raised. Letters patent No. 242,497' are not invalidated by the prior issue to the same patentee, In 1879, of for a ?ombination of a spring in such a way as to produce both a bftIng and depreSSIng effect upon the beams of a vator. although upon the application as made for that patent letters might have been procured covering the combination in question, which exerts only a lifting efi:ect upon the beams, increasing in force as the beam rises, where a severance in the application was made owing to interference proceedings' to determine who WIlS the first inventor of the combination for producing the lifting effec,t alone. Letters patent No. 242,497, for an improvement in cultivators, consisting of a combination of a lifting spring with the beams in such away that a greater lifting effect is produced as the beam is elevated, are infringed by,letters pat. ent Nos. 248,123 and 270,629, which produce the same effect by a dIfferent com· bination of the parts of the invention, and by a differently arranged spring.

SAME-PRIOR PATENT TO SAME PATENTEE.

SAME-INFRINGEMENT-DIFFERENT ARRANGEMENT OF PARTS.

In Equity. Bill to restrain infringement of letters patent. Geo. H. Christy and Nathl. French, for complainant. West &;0 Bond, for defendants. Before SHmAs and LOVE, JJ

SHmAB, J. On the 7th of June, 1881, there was issued toE.A.Wright letters patent No. 242,497. for an improvement in cultivators,the; object of the invention being to reduce the labor of handling the machine when in use by the application of springs thereto in such manner as to assist the operator in raising the beams and the shovels attached thereto from their operative to their inoperative positions, without having such springs exert apy material lifting strain upon the beams when' the' cultivator is in operation. The means for accomplishing this object, pointedolit in the patent issued, is by the combination of a wheeled frame,verticallyor drag-bars attached thereto, so that the same may be rotated vertically, and lifting springs so attached that a greater lifting ,ef. feet, is produced upon the beam as the same is elevated than when it is depressed, which lifting force of the spring increases as the beam is elevated, and is maintained notwithstanding the tension of the self decreases as the beam is elevated. By assignment the complainant

296

FEDERAL REPORTER.

is now the owner of these letters patent, and in the present suit avers that the defendant is infringing its rights by manufacturing and selling cultivators containing the features covered by the patent named; and an injunction and accounting are prayed for. The defendant rests the defense upon the two general grounds of the invalidity of the letters patent Qwned by complainant, and non-infringement thereof by defendant; it being further averred that the, cultivators sold by the defendant were manufactured by the David Bradley Manufacturing Company, of Chicago, under letters patent issued to Charles A. Hague, dated June 21, 1881, and numbered 243,123, and to Byron C. Bradley, dated January 16, 1883, and numbered 270,629. Invalidity of the patent owned by comwant of novelty, and the isplainant is claimed upon two grounds, i. suance to E. A. Wright of a patent under date of December 16, 1879, embracing in substance the features of novelty sought to be protected by the subsequent patent of June, 1881. The defense of want of novelty is mainly based upon the fact that in 1869 a patent was issued to H. N. Dalton for the combination of a coiled or other spring with the axle and frame of a gang-plow in such a way that the gang-plow might be.raised while running, so as to cut a light furrow or be lifted entirely from the ground. In Dalton's machine the wheels moved upon an axle, with a crank therein running under the frame of a gang-plow. A spring was coiled around the axle, one end being attached to the frame and the other to the axle. When the spring was released it tended to revolve the crank-axle, and thereby to lift the frame. The greatest effect, however, would be produced when the spring was first released, and the lifting effect would decrease with the decrc:se of tension In theWright the novelty consists, not in merely applying the lifting power of a spring to aid in raising the drag-beams or frame of the (Jultivator, but in the combination of a spring with the the drag-beam and frame in snch a manner that the operator is aided in lifting the drag-beams, and the lifting power is so applied that its effect increases as the drag-bar is elevated, and when the machine is in operation the lifting effect is so slight as to be practically eliminated. The Wright combination is not found in the Dalton machine, and the result produced by the two machines, while alike in the sense that in each a lifting effect is produced, is different in that Wright produces a con!'ltantly increasing effe.ct, while Dalton has a decreasing effect as the tension of the spring weakens. As applied to cultivators, a Dalton combination would have no practical value, whereas that of Wright is useful and valuable when thus applied. Without the aid of drawings it is difficult intelligibly explain the differences existing between the Dalton and Wright combinations, and we shall content ourselves by saying that the differences in structure, operation, and result are sufficiently marked to justify the holding that the Wright patent cannot be held void for want of novelty by reason of anything appearing in the Dalton combination. The same is true of the patent issued to W. P Brown. He applied S-shaped springs for the purpose of exerting a·lifting effect upon the culbeam or drag-bar, but their operation was the same in effect as in

e.,

EAGLE

CO.

BRADLEY

297

the Dalton machine, their effect being greatest when the beam was in iti:! working position. Without noticing specially the other patents and form of cultivators which have been presented and commented on in argument ill support of the allegatian of lack of novelty in the Wright combination, we hold that none of them contain the special feature, nor produce the same result, found in the Wright patent; and hence we reach the conclusion that the defense of lack of novelty.by reason of prior invention has not been made out. No argument is needed to show that the object sought to be accomplished by the Wright combination is of value .and usefulness in the manufacture of cultivators. The number of patents issued fot contrivances intended to accomplieh the object, as well as tl:e fact that in all, or nearly all, the forms of wheeled cultivators now upon the market some device to this end is found, shows that the result brought about by the combination patented to Wright is sufficiently useful to . sustain a patent upon the means for accomplishing the same. The second ground upon which invalidity in the Wright patent is predicated is that Wright, when the patent of 1881 was issued,already held a patent which substantially covered the same invention, and that the existence of the former destroys the validity of the latter. The principle that, if an inventor obtains a valid patent covering his invention, he cannot at a later date obtain a second valid patent for the saine invention is well settled. Odiorne v. Factory, 2 Mason, 28; Suffolk Co. v. Hayden,3 Wall. 315. James v. Campbell, 104 U. S. 382. The evidence in this case shows that on December 16, 1879, a patent was issued to Eo A. Wright for an "improvement in wheel cultivators,» the object of which is stated to be the giving the operator mechanical assistance in raising and lowering the plows without interfering with their usual action .and movement, and to prevent the plows from rising out of the ground accidentally, and to limit their descent, and the means employed consist of the combination ofa beam or drag-bar, swinging vertically, with a doubleacting automatic spring, the coiled end of which is attached to a bearing . p]ateattnched to the beam or draK-bar, while the free end of the passes under a roller attached to the upright part of the arched axle. The spring itself consists OJ Ii coil at the fixed end, with an arm projecting having a bend or shoulJer and a further projection or extension thetefrom. When the cultivator plows are in the ground, the effect of this spring is to press down upon the drag-bar, and thus aid in keepinl{ the plows in the ground. When the drag-bar is raised, so that the bend in the arm oj the spring passes the roller, at this instant the action of the spring is reversed l and a lifting effect upon the beam results. It further appears that when Wright first applied for a patent his application was in such form that he might have procured thereon letters patent covering the combination intended to exert only a. lifting effect upon the drag-beams, and also the combination providing for the pressure upward or downward as the position of the drag-bar is changed. While the application was pending in the patent-office, an interference was elared with the application of une W. J. Browne, in order to determine which was the first inventor of the combination for producing the lifting

298

,FlllDERAI. REPOR'rER.

effect alon l.There being no doubt that, whatever might be the result of the interference proceedings, Wright was entitled to a patent for the combinatiolluniting the, lifting and depressing action upon the drag-bar, a severance in the application was made,'lJ,nJ .the patent dated December 16, 1879, was issued to him, in which the combination is declared to be for the double purpose of holding the beam or bar down to its work, and of assisting in lifting it when the bar is' thrown out of action,-that is, when it is lifted free of the ground. In the specification it is stated: "I do not claim in the present patent the broad idea of a lifting spring which acts with increasing force as the beam rises, as I have made the same tile .supject of a separate application bearing date prior hereto." It is thus made qlear that the issuance of two patents was not for the but was caused by the purpose, ofextending the life of the action of the patent-office, in the manner and for the purpose describerl Upon th,e hearing of the interference proceedings, it was finally decided that Wright was the prior inventor of the combination for lifting the drag-bar by means of a spring, so arranged that the lifting effect increaseE as, the tensi,on of the spring decreases, or, iIi other words, as the dragbar is raised up from the operative position) and for that combination the' patent of 1881 was finally granted him. It will be noticed that the patellt llltest in date was first applied for, ,and 1 if the two were identical, the question WOUld arise whether the date of application or of final issue would governin deciding which of the two was to be held invalid. Without considering this matter, weare of opinion that the ground covered by'the tw'J pat r '1ts is sufficiently distinct to uphold both patents, and the objection made that the patent of 1881 is rendered void by that of 1879 must be overruled. This brings us to the question of infringement. As already stated, the an&wer avers that the cultivators sold by defendant are manufactured under patents issued to Charles A. Hague and Byron C. Bradley. In ,the Hague cOmbination is found a spring with a coiled end attached to upright of the arch axle, the other end being connected by a link with a movable arm fastened by means of a spindle to the side of the tongue back of the axle. When the plows are in the ground the coiled 8pring is at its greatest tension, ,buUhe lifting effect upon the drag-bar is wanting, because the position of the link and movable arm is then 8uch that the pulling effect caused by the spring is exerted in a line parallel t or nearly so, with the drag-bar. When, however, the drag-bar is lifted, ,then th.e arm attached to the tongue begins to rise, and, by means of a chain running from the arm to the drag-bar, a lifting effect is caused. The result is identical with that produced by the Wright combiI)ation, and it is brought about by the use of a coiled spring with au elongated arm acting between the upright of the arched axle and the beam or dragbar. 'There is a difference in the position of the parts of the combinaJioni but a mere change in position does not constitute a new combina, There are also some changes tion nor evince the exercise of made in mode by which the lifting effect of the spring is brought to bear. uvon the drag-bar.,' of the direct application of this effect

EAGLE

CO; V.1dOLIN'E; 'MILBURN & STODDARD CO.

299

shown in the Wright combination, it is applied through the li'nk,'arrn, and chain; but despite thiscMnge th.e combination in the Hague form of machine clearly includes the principle and mode of application thereof covered by \he Wright combination, and is therefore an infringetne!l.t thereon. In the :Bradley patent the spring is made in the form ora. one end ofwhich is fastened to the upright of the arched and the free end is connected by a flexible connection to a vibrating arm hung on the arch or frame, which arm is connected with a hook projecting from the beam coupling in such shape that when the free end of the drag-bar is raised, the spring, acting through the vibrating arm and its connection with the beam coupling, tends to ralse the beam upward. This is but another form of the combination of a spring exerting It lifting effectupori the' drag-bar of the cultivator as the latter is raised out'Of the substantially in the manner pomted out by Wright. It is apparent that as soon as Wright had shown that it was possible to accomplish the desired object of raising the drag-bar without interfering with the action of the cultivator by utilizing the pulling effect of a spring operating between the axle or frame of the cultivator and the drag.beam or bar, it then be:came possible for others to suggest many different modifications in the position and means of attachment of the parts necessary to effect the liesired result; but these modifications, so far as they have been brought to the attention of the court in this cause, did not, in their production, require the exercise of inventive skill, and they all include the essentia)s of the combination covered by Wright's patent of 1881. ' . Our conclusion is that complainant is entitled to a decree,. as prayed for.
LoVE,

J., .concurs.

EAGLE MANUF'G

Co. v.

MOLINE,

STODDARD

Co.

(Circuit Court, S D.lowa. r, i). May 14.1888.)
PATEN:T8 FOR INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMENT-IMPROVEMENT IN CULTIV,lT\»UJ..

. Letters patent No. 242.497, for an improvement in cultivators, consisting of '8 combination of a lifting spring with the beams and frame in sucha way that the elevating effect upon the beam is increased as the bar is raised, tension of ,the spring decreases, are infringed by letters patent Nos. 259,'626 and 26l!;123, which produce the same effect by a spring acting betweenthe beam and the arc.hed axle, the variations of form being but modillcatio1llt' of the means employed under the first-named letters.

In Equity. Bill to restrain infringement of letters patent. Goo. H. Christy and Nathl. French; for complainant. We$t& Wood, for defendants. Before SHIRAS and LOVE, JJ.

:i'

I,

SHffiAS, J. This cause was submitted with that of same against David Bradley &Co., ante, 295, (just decided,) and a9 complain-

Search Open Jurist

35 F1d 295

Popular content