AM ENDE V. SEABURY.
the workman prior to the reception of the stone. The size of the tool varies according to the size of the setting. The complainant's record contains the letters patent and proof of infringement. No evidence in rebuttal was offered. The defense is want of novelty. The defendant introduced an engraver's large wooden chuck, known as "l£xhibit No.6." The complainant concedes that if this chuck, or others similarly constructed, were made prior to the alleged invention, the patent must be declared invalid; the difference in size being unimportant. This concession simplifies the issue. The proof is clear that these anticipating devices were known and in use long prior to the complainant's patent. The defendant saw them as early as 1877. One of the witnes8es recollects seeing them in 1879; two others, in the spring of 1884. This Iwidence is criticised, and some circumstances which tend to cast doubt upon its cortectness are pointed out; but, as it is not contradicted, and comes from the lips of respectable and unimpeached witnesses, there is ,no justification for arbitrarily disregarding it. Upon the record as presented, the patent is unquestionably void for want of novelty. It is unnecessary to consider letters patent No. 289,106, granted to the complainant, November 27, 1883, for the reason that it was admitted on the argument that the defendant had not infringed. The bill must be dismissed, with costs.
ENDE 11. SEABURY
(Circuit Court, 8. D. New York. November 15, 1888.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-SPECIFICATIONS-CERTAINTY.
Letters patent No. 181,024, issued August 15, ,1876, to Charles G. Am Ende. for an improvement in borated cotton. describe the process as follows: "I first prepare a solution of boracic acid, in the usual manner, and add thereto a small proportion of glycerine. * * * The cotton, either in bulk or wadding, is next immersed in the solution until well impregnated therewith, and then . pressed, to discharge all surplus solution. or much thereof 8S may be reo quired. The cotton is then dried, and ready for use." Held, that while the di· rections contained in this specification might seem vague and indefinite to a person not skilled in chemistry, they were sufficiently clear to be comprehended by persons skilled in the art to which the patent relates, which is sufficient.
Held, also, that none of the journal articles in evidence anticipate said patent, 8S none of them indicate the use of cotton saturated with a solution of boracic acid and glycerine in the manner described in the specification.
In Equity. Bill for infringement of patent, brought by Charles G. Am Ende against Seabury & Johnson. Arthur V. Eriesen, for complainant. Norman T. M. Melliss, for defendants.
COXE, J. The complainant is the owner oflettE-rs patent No. 181,024, granted to him August 15, 1816, for an improvement in borated cotton. v.36F.no.l0-38
The object of the inventor was to produce a simple and inexpensive an· tiseptic dressing by combining the various advantages of cotton fiber with those possessed by boracic acid and glycerine. The specification asserts that prior to the invention hQracicacid had been used as a preservative agent only in a fluid state or as a powdp,r, and that it was necessary to immerse the matter to be preserved in the fluid, or cover it completely with the powder, requiring, in either case, large quantities of the acid. The inventor accomplishes a better and more permanent result in a much simpler and more convenient way by saturating the cotton with the acid and glycerine in small proportions; thus adding to their preservative properties the geml-filtering quality and elasticity of the cotton. The map-ner of producing the borated cotton is described in the specification as follows: "I first prepare a solution of boracic acid in the usual manner, and add thereto a small proportion of glycerine. For the preservation of tender substances, such ,8S veal, I may also add from 10 to 40 per cent. of soda or potash. never slltllcient, howe\'er, to reach neuLrality. The cotton. either in bulk or wadding, is immersed in the solution until well impregnated therewith, and then pressed. to dischargeall surplUS solution. or so much thereof as may be required. The cotton is then dried, and ready for use." The clnimis for "the borated cotton, being cot;ton fiber which is ated with boracic acid and glycerine, substantially as herein shown and described." The defenses are that the specification is not so clear and explicit as to enable a person skilled in' the art to practice the invention, and that the patent is void for lack of novelty. Infringement is clearly established, alid is not denied in the brief submitted for the defendants. In considering the question presented by the first defense it should be'remembered that the language critiCised by the defendants is addressed to persons skilled in the particular art to which it relates. 'To a lawyer or a banker the specification might seem vague, and, 'perhaps, 'meaningless; but a pharmacist, a chemist, or even an educated physician would have little difficulty in understanding it. When the patentee says he prepares a "solution of boracic acid in the usual manDer," he means as it has formerly been prepared. He speaks of it as he would speak of a solution of camphor or alum., Every druggist knows what he means. He certainly might have been more definite when he says that he adds to this solution "a small proportion of glycerine," but it is thought that the intelligent chemist, setting out properly to combine the enumerated ingredients into which the cotton is to be immersed, and with which it is to be impregnated, could hardly go astray. Indeed, in examining the extracts introduced by the defendants to establish lack of novelty, copied from pharmaceutical journals reputation and authority ,we find similar language used. Thus, in the Druggists' Circular and Chemical Gazette it is stated that Dr. Edmunds had used "a solution of boracic acid," and in the Journal de Phal'macie it appears that Prof. Gubler saturated his wadding with "a certain quantity of glycArine." The. form ula for prepa ring this dressing is then given. "It is I:mly necessary,"cSays the writer, "to pour a 8rnall quantity of glycerine
over the square sheet," etc. Such expressions would seem to belong to the nomenclature of the art. ,The expression "wellimpregnated" means thoroughly t completely im pregnated; the word "well" being used in the sense that a housewife might use it when telling her domestic to keep the bread or the joint in the oven until weU done. Tested by the rule of Loom Co. v. Higgin8, 105 U. S. 580, the specification would seem to be suffiCient. The article translated from the Journal de Pharmacie et de Chimie is not an anticipation. It is entitled "Glycerized cotton, for dressing wounds." There is no reference to boracic acid. Two of the elem'ents of Am Ende's combination, boracic acid and water,-the acid in solution,-are wanting. True, it is stated that Prof. Gubler found this waddirig permeable to all medicinal liquids, but there is no hint that he knew that with it could be combined the preservative properties of boracic acid in anunerystalized condition as a convenient, effective, and permanent antiseptic composition. The article in the American Journal of Pharmacy of March, 1867,shows great familiarity with the characteristics andnses of glycerine on the part of the writer. He knew its excipient,'hygroscoplc, and penetrating properties. He knew that it was a solVent for boracic acid, but he certainly did not know-at least he did the knowledge-that it could be combined with dissolved bpracic Mid, and thus held in cotton fiber for antiseptic purposes. The quotation from the Druggists' Circular of June, 1875, is entitled "Boracic Acid," and describes a case of amputation in which the surgeon employed it "dressing oflint steeped in a hot saturated solution of boracic acid." This dres!3ing was probably applied· in a moist condition to the wound. No glycerine was used. It cannot be demonstrated from the proofs that anyone, prior to Am Ende, accomplished what he has described and daimed; Even though there be a doubt, it should be resolved in favor of the patent. The fact that others had done something quite similar, that they had used separately, or in different combinations, the ingredientsof his claim, should not affect his patent. All that is described in the prior publications the defendants may use with perrect impunity. They may' use "lint steeped in a hot saturated solution of boracic acid," or "wadding saturated with a certain of glycerine," or boradc acid dissolved in glycerine; but they should not be permittoo to use cotton saturated with a solution of boracic acid and glycerine in the mati'" ner described in the specification, lor that belongs to Am Ende. The complainant is enti.tled to the usual decree.
DURHAM HOUSE DRAINAGE CO. V. ARMSTRONG.
Oourt, S. D. New York. November 19,1888.
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONs-INFRnmEMENT-DRAINAGE SYSTEM.
Letters patent No. 235,754, issued December 21, 1880, to Caleb W. Durham, were for an invention ofa drainage system, which supports itself independently of the building, upon pillars of masonry on which IS laid the main wastepipe, conneC,ted at the lower end of a vertical soil-pipe, to which are rigidly fastened the branches running to various parts of the building. The invention IIlso claims a combination of a cast water-closet fitting provided with r. flange for the reception of the water-closet, with the rigid branch-pipes. The defendant's apparatus consists of a main drain laid under ground, and resting upon the earth, with the soil-pipe ell:tending perpendicularly to the second story, thence at an angle of 60 degrees to the third story, thence perpen· dicularly to the roof. The soil-pipe above the angle found support from the flanges at the, ends of the branch-pipes resting on the floor in each story, but was not otherwise self-supporting. Held no infringement.
In Equity. Bill for infringement of a patent. Action by the Durham House Drainage Company, c;>fNew York, against James Armstrong for the infringement of letters patent No. 235,754, granted' to Caleb W. Durham for an improvement in drainage apparatus. Tuttle, Goodell &: Brooks and John H. Kitchen, for complainant. George Brower, for defendant.
COXE, J. The complainant's patent, No. 235,754, was granted to Caleb W. Durham, December 21, 1880, for an improvement in drainage apparatus for houses and other buildings. The central idea of the invention is a drainage system which supports itself independently of the building in which it is located. The object of the inventor was to prevent the escape of sewer gas, caused by the loosening of the joints and the breaking or disarrangement of the parts of the apparatus, occasioned by the settling, rocking, or rolling of the building, and the different parts thereof. This result is accomplished by laying the main waste-pipe in an inclined position upon pillars of masonry. To this is attached a vertical soil-pipe, which extends up through the various stories of. the building, its lower end being screwed into an elbow, which supports it directly upon the masonry. From this soil-pipe rigid branches extend connecting it with the water-dosets, the whole being supported by the vertical pipe, as a tree supports its branches. The three claims aJleged to be infringed are as follows: "(2) The combination with the drain, of the vertical soil-pipe, and a support therefo!:, independent of the building, Bubstantially as specified. (3) The combination with the rigid soil-pipe, and an independent support therefor, of the rigid branch-pipe, upon which the water-closet fitting is supported and secured, substantially as and for the purpose specified." "(5) The combination of the cast water-closet fitting prOVided with a flange for the reception of the water-closet, with a rigid branch-pipe, substantially as specified." Defendant has placed a drainage apparatus in a build:ng known as "Trinity Factory." It is charged that in so doing he has infringed. The