SIMONDS COUNTER MACHINERY CO. V. YOUNG.
in which the spindle revolves with the brush, and is removable from the frame with it, such devices in various forms being common and well known." The claim is as follows: "The combination, with the frame of a carpet sweeper and its brush, the spindle, .A, attached to the frame, and working longitudinally therein, to support or release the brush, and operated by the D, and handle, E, substantially as set forth." In view of the state of the art, it must be admitted that the scope of this invention is very narrow. It will be observed that the handle, E, by which the spring is operated, is made one of the elements of the claim. In defendants' machine they use a spring or its equivalent, but not the handle. Unless we can broaden the claim of the patent so as to leave out the handle as a part of the combination, it is clear that the defendants do not infringe. This cannot be done, because it is apparent from the drawings and specification that the handle was one of the material elements of the patented combination. Nor can it be said that the spring in defendants' device is the equivalent of the spring and handle of the Stewart sweeper. The spring in each device may be made to serve the double purpose of handle and spring, but that does not make the defendants'spring the equivalent of a spring with a handle. Stewart chose to have the handle distinct from the spring, and he describes such handle in his patent, and makes it an element of his claim. Without entering into the other defenses, I think forthe reasons stated that the defense of non-infringement is well taken, and that the bill should be dismissed.
SIMONDS COUNTER MACHINERY Co.
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMENT-MOULDING SHOE STIFFENERS.
Patent No. 292,514, granted January 29, 1884, to N. J. Simonds, for improvements in moulding stiffeners for boots or shoes. the specification of which shows that the important improvement covered by the patent is the production of a counter with converging front ends. or with a widened center and contracted front. by means of two pairs of moulds. is not infringed by defendants' machine, (under patent No. 350,907, granted to William J. Young,) in which two sets of dies are used,-one to partially shape the blank at its forward ends, and. the other to finish it by moulding the rear pQrtionS,-but in which there is no converging of the front ends of the counter.
In Equity. Suit for infringement of patent. W. A. Macleod, for complainant. J. E. Maynadie:r, for defendants.
COI.T, J. This suit is brought for the alleged infringement of the first claim ofletters patent No. 292,514, granted January 29, 1884, to N. J. Simonds, for improvements in moulding stiffeners for boots or shoes. Stiffeners are placed around the heel of a boot or shoe, and the specifi-
C)ation :s",ys the invention consists both 'in the mechanical devices em. ployed, and in the. method. or process by which the improvement is carried into effect. The first claim is for the method or process, and reads follows; "The herein-described method of moulding stiffeners, the same consisting in first sUbjecting them to pressure in moulds adapted to act upon and compress the forward portion thereof. and then repeati ng such moulding in dies adapted to mould the rear portion, and to set the stiffener in form with converging front ends, substantially as specified." The patent describes two pairs of moulds by which a counter or stiffener may be made with converging front ends. A careful examination of the whole specification shows that the important improvement covered by the patent was the production of a counter with converging front ends, or with a widened center and contracted front, by means of two !)airs of moulds. The specification says: "A well moulded and formed stiffener is widest at a point about midway between the apex of the heel and the extreme f1'unt, as shown in the stiffener in position in the moulds in Fig. 10, and, as it is impossible to impart this form in a single pair of solid moulds, many killds of hinged female moulds which could be closed laterally upon the stiffener when in place ou the male mould have been rlevised and patented, as also expanding male moulds, with devices to separate or open the same when in position within the stiffener and female mould, a patent having been granted to me for such expanding mould; but all such hinged. sectional, or expanding moulds are obnoxious to the objection that, wln'rever there is a joint or line between two parts of either a male 01' female mould, there will be found a conesponding ritlge upon the surface of the moulded stiffener. Besides this objection in the pl'Oduct, the divers devices requisite to the actuating of suel Ii vided moulds are highly objectionable, as they are not only liable to be out of order, but seriously interfere with the work pf the operator. With my moulds and method I enti1'elyobviate all these difficulties. * . and I am enabled, with solid moulds, to mould stiffeners with a widened center and contracted front, which is now regarded by the trade as an indispensable form or contour, which form has only been hitherto obtained in moulded stiffeners by means of sectional male or female moulds, 01' both." The method covered by the patent in suit is manifestly limited to the art of moulding counters with converging front ends; and to read this feature out of the first claim, and so broaden it as to make it cover a method or process where this feature is absent, would be unwarranted, and contrary to the intent of the patentee. The defendants' machine is the same as that described in letters patent No. 350,907, granted to William J. Young. And while the defend· ant uses two sets of dies,-one to partially shape the blank at its forward ends, and the other .to finish it by moulding the rear portions thereof,yet, as there is no converging of the front ends of the counter, I do not think it can be said that he uses the method or process described in the first claim of the Simonds patent. This is the chief defense relied upon in this case; and, as it seelllS to me well taken, it becomes unnecessary to consider the other questions which were raised at the hearing. The bill should be dismissed,withcostsj and it is so ordered.
BALDWIN V. T. G. CONWAY CO.
T. G.. CONWAY
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York. July 10, 1888.)
PATENTS FOR !NvENTIONs-PATENTABILITY-!NFRINGEMENT-POLICE NIPPERS.
Letters patent No. 152,8S2, issued January 7,1874, to Alexander P. Baldwin, for "improvements in police nippers." substituting smooth, straight bars for the links of the chain In the nippers ordinarily used prior thereto, which psss through the fingers of the officer's hand, so that in twisting the chain to adapt the nippers to prisoners having small hands or wrists, it will not pinch or injure the officer's fingers, are not invalid for want of novelty, and are infringed by letters patent issued :May 6, 1884, to Edward D. Bean, for nippers having the same device of smooth, straight bars for passing between the fingers, but differing therefrom in providing in the handle or cross·bar at one end of the chain a recess to receive the handle on the other end, thus interlocking them. in Equity. Infringement of letters patent.
G. G. Jilrelinght£ysen, for complainant. John H. Kitchen, for defendants.
WALLACE, J. Infringement is alleged ofletters patent No. 152,882, dated July 7, 1874, granted to Alexander P. Baldwin, for "improvements in police nippers," an article which isa substitute for the ordinary handcuff used by police officers and others to secure .prisoners. The invention consists essentially of a flexible band or chain, haVing· levers adapted for twisting the chain, so as to reduce the area of the loop formed when the levers are held in the hand, and thus increase the pressure upon the wrist of the prisonerj the levers being provided with rigid central bar for preventing injury to the hand of the officer using the nippers. The advantages of the improvement over the nippers previously in use, and the details of construction, are thus described in the patent: "In constructing police nippers it is customary to take a small chain of suitable length, and attach to each end of it a cross-bar similar to those used on chain halters and trace chains. When nippers thus made are used, the links of the Chain are brought between the fingers of the policeman, and tend to hurt the fingers more or less, thus preventing his keeping as firm a hold as is necessary; lind this is increased w4en it becomes necessary to twist chain, and is generally the case more or less, in order to adapt the nippers to prisoners haVing small hands or wrists. To obviate this difficulty I construct the nippers as shown in the drawing. As there shown, I make the cross-bar, B, of the usualform; but instead of forming an eye at its center for attaching the chain, C, I form it at a short bar, D, projecting at right angles from its inner side, and connect the chain to tbe end of tbis cross-bar, B,asshown in the drawing. It will be seen that with this in:provement the liability of injury of the hand or fingers of the officer is obviated, as in using it the smooth, straight bars, D, are brought between the fingers when grasping the crossbar, B, as is the custom in using them; and if it be necessary to twist the chain, the tWisting must necessarily take place beyond the end of the bars, D, thus leaving the latter straight and smooth between the fingers." The defendants are manufacturers of police nippers made conformably to a patent granted May 6, 1884, to Edward Davis Bean. It is entirely