CO; V.1dOLIN'E; 'MILBURN & STODDARD CO.
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.
(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.
SHffiAS, J. This cause was submitted with that of same against David Bradley &Co., ante, 295, (just decided,) and a9 complain-
ant's rights are dependent upon the patent held valid in that cause, it is only necessary in this case to inquire into the question of infringement. The answer herein alleges that "he cultivators sold by defendants are under letmanufactured by the Moline Plow Company of Moline, ters patent No. 259,626, issued to E. A. Wright, dated June 13, 1882, and No. 266,123, issued to William Evans, dated October, 1::;82, of which patents the Moline Plow Company is the assignee and owner. The patent first named is the third one issued to the same party; it appearing that complainant is the owner of the first two issued, and the Moline Plow Company of the last in date. In the specifications of the patent of 1882 it is stated that "the invention relates to an improved manner of constructing the frame and applying the springs for the purpose of raising, or assisting the operator to the beams or the spring having lin some cases the additional function of holding the shovels to their proper places in the ground." From this statement it is apparent that the subject of the patent praCtically includes the subject of his prior . patent of 188,1. So far as the devices employed for raising the drag-bars are concerned, we find them to consist either in the use of a spiral spring operating between the upright of the arched axle and the drag-bar, and so connected therewith that. when the free end of the drag-bar is lifted, the force of the spring is applied through the rotation of the axle to the elevation of the drag-barj or, instead of a spiral spring, it is said a curved or other form of spring may be used, from which it is apparent that no significance is attached to a special form of spring. In the Evans patent we nnd a spiral spring employed, which is placed around a rod passing its upper end through a guide-plate attached to the upright of the arched axle, and connecting at the opposite end with an arm projecting from a rock-shaft placed in front or rear of the main axle. When the drag-bar is elevated it causes the rock-shaft and the arm projecting therefrom to be thrown forward, together with the bottom of the rod around which the spring is coiled, which causes the pressure of the spring to be exerted through the rock-shaft and its connection with the end of the drag-bar, in elevating the latter. In both these patents we find that, for the purpose of elevating the beam or drag-bar of the cultivator, reliance is had upon the force or effect of a spring acting between the drag-bar and the arched axle of the cultivator in such manner that the elevating effect upon the increases as the bar is raised, although the tension of the spring decreases; and, while variations in form are shown, they are but modifications of the means employed by Wright to accomplish that purpose, and none of them dispense with the essential elements of his invention. It must therefore be held that, so far as these several patents include the application of a spring for the purpose and in the general manner indicated, they are based upon the Wright patent, and are infringements thereof. Decree for complainant.
WELLING CELLULOID MANUF'G CO.
(Oircuit Oourt, S.
AMERICAN ZYLONITE CO. et al,
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INVENTION-CELLULOID.
The discovery by Stevens that fusel oil was an efficient and cheap solvent of camphor, in conjunction with nitro-cellulose, was patentable, although it was known previously that fusel oil was a solvent of camphor, and that various essential oils could be used in conjunction with camphor iii the manufacture of pyroxyline.
In Equity. Bill for infringement of patent. C. Wylly8 Betta and Frederic H. Betta, for cO?Jplainant. T. W. 08born and H. M. Rttgglea, for defendants. WALLACE, J. Stevens was the first to discover the value of fuseroil as a solvent of camphor in' conjunction with nitro-cellulose. . It was known previously that fusel oil was a solvent of camphor, and. that'various essential oils could be used in conjunction with camp;ho:rin manufacture of pyroxylineibut some of these oils were not efficient, aod some were useless as substitutes for the men8trua useJ in producing the conversion ofpyroxyline when mixed with camphor. It is doubtless true, that by experimenting with the .whole list of essential oils any compeas tent chemist could have ascertained that fusel oil would, a solvent of the camphor, be efficient in producing the proper conversion of pyroxyline, and could have reached the discovery by a process of exclusion. But this is not enough to defeat a patent. . By his experiments Stevens obtained a menstruum which gave a better result than the men8trua previously used, and at less expense. The fact that alcohol had been used for many yeare; as a menstruum, when a cheaper could have been used, and would have been, if the availability ofiusel oil as a substitute had been obvious to those skilled in the art, is incon'sistent with the suggestion that nothing but the mere exercise of judgment was involved in selecting it as a substitute. There should be a decree forthe cornplainant.
Oircuit Oourt, S. D. New York. June 18,1888.
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMENT-PRACTiCE....,..MASTER'S REPORT- hE-
In suit for infringement of a patent, the issue being referred to a ffiltllter as to whether defendant's alleged infringing article is composed of equal parts of talc and shellac, there being proof that defendant consumed in'hisbusiness nearly equal amounts of each, and plaintifl"sexperts and defendant's by fair implication, thnt defendant's article is composed of the two ingredients iu equal parts, the master's decision to that e.ffect'will not be disturbed. ..