proved pt6cess: And" in ihielView it must 1)e sliownthat theaefendants use all the different steps of thatprocess; otherwise there can be no fririgement. The d·efendants do not use the sweating process, which is the first step in the Royer treatment, and therefore they do not infringe. This patent has been construed by Judge DRUMMOND, in the case of Royer v. Manufacturing Co., 20 Fed. Rep. 853, and I agree with the conclusion he reached, namely, that"If this is a valid patent for a process, it must be limited to the precise, or, certainly, substantial, description which has been given in the specifications; and, in order to'constitute an infringement of that process, a person must be shown to have followed snbtantially the same process. the same mode of reaching the result, as is described in the specifications."
This case has been ably presented on both sides. If the contention of the counsel for the plaintiff was correct, that Royer had invented an entirely new process, which had revolutionized the art of preparing raw hide for belting and other purposes, it might be that the court should give that broad construction to this patent which is justified in the case of a foundation patent; but when we find, as in this case; that. the substantialsteps in the process are all old, theutmoBt that Royer is entitled to is protection against those who use in substance his precise process. Bill dismissed.
ROYER 'lI. COUPE
March 12, 1889.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INVENTION-MACHINE FonTREATING RAW
HIDES. 172,S46;issued January 18,1876, to Herman Royet, the claim of which, broadly, is for the combination with a raw-hide fulling-machine .of au automatic reverser, are void. the elements being old, and their combihation reqUiring no invention. .
III Eqttity. Bill bj 'Herman· Royer agaiust William Coupe and others for the in fringement of a patent. M.A. WheatOn and Lit'ermore .Fi8h, for complainant. B. F. 'i'hu.rston, H. Thurston, mid Manuel Eyre, for defendants. COLT, J..Thissnit is for infringement of letters patent No. 172,346, dated Jan,uary granted to the coniplainan't for in machines for heating raw hide; The patent' is· for an improvement upon the raw-hide fulling-machine which forms the'subject-matter of two prior patents, the first tIated May 12, 1868, and granted to the complainant and his brother Louis, and the second bearing date June 22, 1869, and granted to the complainant. The patent in suit covers the attachment to a raw-hide fulling-machine of a shifting device, or an apparatus whereby the shaft may be reversed automatically. The claim is as follows:
"In combination with the drum, A, of a raw-Ilide fulling-machine, operatIng to twist the leather alternately in one direction and the other, a shifting device for the purpose of making the operation automatic and continuous, sub. stantially as described." Broadly speaking, the claim is for the combination with a raw-hide fulling-machine of an automatic reverser. Now, it cannot be denied that the fulling-machine was old, and further, that automatic reversing apparatus, in a variety of fonns, including the form shown in the patent in suit, was old, and therefore we come to the first proposition in this case,-whether the combination of these two things for the first time constitutes a patentable subject of invention. This identical question uuder this patent was before Judge DRUMMOND in the case of this complainant against the Chicago Manufacturing Co., 20 Fed. Rep. 853, and it was there held, and it seems to me properly, that, under the patent laws as construed by the courts, there was no invention in such a combination of old devices. In discussing this patent, Judge DRUMMOND says: "It seems to me that the evidence shows that this improvement was Doth.jng more thantheapplication to raw-hide fulIing-machines oian old and welldevice used in washing-machines; and the testimony of one of the witnesses clearly establIshes that the plaintiff obtained his idpa from an examination and description of the same device used in a washing-machine;artd. under and with the assifltance of the witness, applied it to the fnlIingthe machine. It therefore comes within the rule which has been so long settled, that the application of an old device to another analogous use is not a patp,ntable subject, and therefore·I thi,nk the bill is not maintainable under this principle of the patent law, and must be dismissed." There is no reason, upon· the present record, to doubt the soundness of Judge DRUMMOND'S conclusiolls. When Royer had perfected his fullso as to make it practicable to apply an automatic reverser, he knew exactly what to do. . He applied to Mr. Clercto construct a re,versing apparatus precisely like those which had been applied by him to washing-machines for some years, and this was accordingly done, and the apparatus applied to the fulling-machine. It is difficult to discover any element of invention in this. The learned counsel for the complainant has entered into an exhaustive review of the authorities bearing upon the question of what constitutes invention, and he seeks to show that what Royer did was patentable. But the simple underlying facts in this case are to my mind at variance with many of the authorities he cites; and with his elaborate reasoning on the subject. Under the law as now administered by the courts, lean find nothing patentable in what Royer did. and therefore the bill must be dismissed. Bill dismissed.
ELECTRICAL ACCUMULATOR CO. II. JULIEN ELECTRIC CO.
tl. JULIEN ELECTRIC
CO. et al.
(Circuu Oourt, 8. D. Net1J York. March 18, 1889.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS BATTERIES.
CONS>J:RUCTION OF CLAIM -
The specification in letters patent No. 252,002, issued January 8,1882, to C. A. Faure. describes the batteries invented by Gaston Plante, in which the plates have comparatively limited capacity, and require a long and expensive operation for their formation, and states the patentee's object to be to prevent such waste of time and money. and to construct a more powerful battery. Claim 1 is "as an improvement in secondary batteries, an electrode consisting;" etc. Held, that a secondary battery, as distinguished from a primary one. is an element of the combination.
, There being weIl·known primary batteries, and weIl-known secondary batteries. though there are others not definitely classifiable, the term "secondary battery, " as used in the patent will not be construed as including Ii primary battery which has been exhausted and partially restored by being charged from an independent generator. B. SAME. " ' " ", ' ,,'" Claim 1 being for "an electrode," etc., and the words "a pair of electrodes" being used in another claim. and it appearing from a foreign patent and the file-wrapperand the domestic patent that the patentee's attl:Jntion was 4rawn to the distinction between Oneand two electrodes, the daim cannot be limited to the use of two electrodes. but a battery ODe Faure electrode, though the other is dissimilar, is within the claim. if the two operatetore-. ceive and-discharge electricity as stated in the specification. "
Claim 1 is for "an electrode consisting of a support coated:onone or more faces with an active layer of absorptive substance such as metalor metallic compound applied thereto in the described condition so as to be,orinstantly become spongy. and thus capable of receiving and dischargingelectricit1, as stated; in contradistinction to a me taili c plate itself rendered spongy by;the disintegrating action of electricity, substantially," etc. !tis stated til lit the oxides or salts of lead not soluble in the electrolyte is deemed :most advantageous for covering the supports, but that the inventi(jn includes geI).· erally substances capable Of itbsorbing and storing electricity; for example, manganese, or any salt, the oxide of whose base is insoluble; that the active material may be applied, in various ways as in the form of paint, paste, or cement, in the form of a deposit by galvanic action or chemical precipitation or otherwise. In charging. the electricity produces a reduced mass of porous lead ()n one electrode and a mass of peroxide of lead on theother,andiudischarging the reduced lead becomes oxidized. and the peroxidized lead is: reduced. Held, that the claim includes a coating soluble in the'electrolyte 'and one which is applied after immersion by galvanic deposit or chemical precipi· tation from a s(}lution in the liquid. ..,., The patentee cannot claim the invention earlier than October 20, 1880; which was the date of his French patent. he being then a citizen of France:
" , , ' ,
$. SAME":"DATE OF INVENTION.
The ElectriCian' of 1'868 containt:d an article entitled "SeC(jndary13atteries." but there was no evidence that a successful secondary battery having the characteristics therein mentioned was ever made, though similar structure,s.: were. proved inoperative; and in such battery a reduced mass of porous lead on olle electrode and amass of peroxide of lead on theotl),er were not produced. A person skilled in the art, afterreading the article, ,would be unable to produce a Faure battery in any of its practica!forms. ,Held nO,antielp a t i o n . ' . '
... A witness testified to an article 25 years before, and· to' experiments and results by him which would amount to. anticipation., ,The article .was not