SAME t1. CHAMPION MACHINE SAME SAME
et al. et al.
«(hrcuit Oourt, S.
FOR bVENTIONS-'CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIM-GRAIN-BlImING
In view oftheprQceedings in thepatent-oflice before, the issue of letters No. 77,876, May 12, 1868, to James Gordon. for improveIXlents in grain harTesters, allowing that the first clailnof the first application; which embraced broadly the feature of a binding' device capable of adjustment in the direction ·of the length of the grain .fn order to bind the bundle at or near the center. was required t!> be and was limited. as allowed, to the binding arm, capable of adjustment in the direction of the length of the grain. in combination with an automatic twisting device, substantially, etc.· and, in view of the prior state of the art as sh.own .by prior patents. such claim. must be limited to the specific combination embodied in it, includi'ng the rake as an element. and caunot be enlarged so as to cover all binding devices adjustable to separate machines. ' . ,
. ' . '
, 8. 4.
. If so enlarged. tl)..e claim would be void, as being anticipated bI the Watson, Renwick & Watson patent; No.8,0f:l8. May 18, 1851; Watson & Renwick patent, No. 9.000, JUDe 6, 1858; the patent to S. S. Hurlbut. No. 7,928. dated February 4, 1851; theA. Sherwood patent, No. 21,540. granted September 14, 1858; and the patent issued to Allen Sherwood, August 50, 1859; but, as thus restricted, it is not so anticipated.. ,
But .the patentee is not entitled to the benefit of the doctrine of equivalents or the Hberal construction aIIowlld to pioneer inventions. -'
The adjustable feature of certain parts of a harvester cannot, in the light of the art as disclosed by prior ,patents, be treated as substantially the same thing as an independentbindhlg mechanism, adjustable as a whole. with all its parts fixed aud unadJustable. simply because such binding device is used in connection with gram harvesters; .and such an independent binding machine does not. when so used;;infringe the first claim of the patent.
. J . . . "
Such an adjustable and independent binding device: could not anticipate the first claim of the Gordon patent, nor is the Gord'on invention an anticipation of, such a device. ail thes&mc is described in the Carpenter patent.
Four suits by JOQn and others against H. Warder and others, 'the Champion Maclline' Company ,Whitely,Fassler & Kelly, and Abel Hoover and others, to restrain the infringement of a patent. Esek Cowen, Geo. B. Selden, and Stem & Peck, for complainants. Parl.-inson & Parkinson, for defendants. Benj. F. Thur8ton, for the William Deering Company. John R. Bennett, for the Minneapolis Harvester Company. Before JACKSON & SAGE, JJ.
PER CuRIAM. Without setting out in detail the facts in the aboveentitled causes, which were heard together, and in each of which the
GORDON V. WARDER.
question is narrowed down to the single point whether the first claim of letters patent No. 77 ,878, for certain "improvements in grain harvesters," issued May 12, 1868, to James F. Gordon, is infringed by the attachable and adjustable binding-machines used by the several defendants in connection with this harvester. The conclusions of the court, after a careful examination of the evidence and full consideration of the questions prest)nted, are the following, viz.: . 1. That in view of the proceedings which took place in the patentoffice; before said letters patent No. 77,878 were granted, as disclosed in the file wrapper and contents, showing that the patentee was required to and did narrow and limit the broad claim of his first ltpplication covering and embracing the broad feature of a binding device or mechanism capable of adjustment in the direction of the length of the grain in order to bind the bundle or gavel at or near the center by confining and restricting said claim, as finally allowed, to" the binding arm, N, capable of adjustment in the direction of the length of the grain, in combination with an automatic twisting device, substantially as and for the purposes set forth;"and.in view of the state of the art as shown in the prior patents & Watson, No. 8,083, dated May 13,1851; ofWat!son & Renwick, No. 9,930, dated June 6, 1853; of S. S. Hurlbut, No. 7,928, dated February 4, 1851; of A. Sherwood, No. 21,540, granted '.Septembel' 14,1858; .andof Allen Sherwood, No. 25,308, issued August 30,1859; Said first claim of said letters patent No.· 77,878, alleged to be infringed by defendant, must be limited and confined to the specific .combination embodied therein, and described in the specification, ing the rake as an element of said combination, and cannot be properly enlarged or broadened asa pioneer invention, as urged by counsel for 80 as to cover any and all binding rlevices or mechanism ,which are made to separate and independent harvester machines. 2. That, if not 80 limited and restricted, said letters patent No. 77,878 were IlDticipated by the patents,above mentioned, and therefore void. 3. 'Thatas limited and confined to the specific combInation therein described, said first claim of said letters patent is valid, but complliinants cannot, under said claim, invoke in behalf of this patent the doctrine of equivalents, or the liberal construction allowed to pioneer inventions, so as to broaden said claim, and thereby practically make it cover what the patent-office had once rejected, with the patentee'sacquiescence. 4. That under this view of the proper restrictive construction to be placed upon said letters patent, or the first claim thereof, it neither an\ticipatesthe S. D. Carpenter patent, nor was it anticipated by said Carpenter's patent. Said Carpenter's patent and invention embodies· the adjustable and independent binding mechanism such as defendantsgen.erally use and employ in connection with their j:1;rainharvester. 5. Thatthe defendants' binding machines, which are entirely separate, independent, and distinct from the grain harvesters, although so constrilcted air to be attached to said harvesters, and made adjustable so as :to bind the gavel centrally,do not, when so used, infringe the firsfclaim v.i:l8F.no.7-38
.ofcomplainapt'ssaidpatept No. 77.;878. .The adjustable feature of tain parts .of a single cOI)lbined 11Ilachine or grain harvester CIlnnot, in the light of the art as discll)sed in prior patents, be treated cOuegarded as the same or substantially the same thing as an independent bipding-meehanism,adjustable aSa whole, with all its parts fixed andunadjustable, simply because such binding device is. used in connection. with grain harvesters. 6.'rhat the bills in the above-entitled causes should each be displissed. at complaina.nt's costs,. it is accordingly so ordered and adjudged. .. ,
8·. iJ. NfM York. May 4. 1889.)
: LetterspatentNo. 267.192. issued W complainant November 7, .1882, for "imwinding silk and othllr thread, " contain pro;vements in the, art .. two (1)" A of silk or thread wound Upon a reel diagon· ally from side to side; in the manner described, and laced back and forth across its width to prl3serve its " etc.; (2)'" thllcomQination of the lacing with a wide silk· or ot1).er thread in whicl\ the strands are diagonally crossed; substantially," etc. The form of skein described in the patent was· well known I but the method of dyeing and winding·slIk by n!!vel' been th().ughtof. unjtq employed It and described It In thIS patent. stating that the lacmg "constItutes the chief point of my invehtion. and is what preserves the skein in its shape, and prevents its becoming entangled. in the 'process of dyeing." Dela, that the claiJD.!iI fail to cover and the patent is void. It would be of no avail to disclaim the skehi except fOfuse in the process of dyeing, as that would not .chanK6 the patent into one for the process, which is what the invention consists of.'
. . , , ..
. " . ' i ... . . . . . Bill for infringement Q( patent, filed by James M. Grant against Richard Walter. , , Wm.Edgar·Simonds, for cODlplninant. Henry GraB8e, for defendant·· This suit upon lettersPlJ.tentNo. dated Nov:eqJ,ber 7, 1882, apd.graqted tq theqra,t()l fpr ",hat are <::aIled in the pateJilt l!improvemeqts,iJ;l: arto( winding silk and "to .a, nov'elmanner other thread," .and which ..of winding silk or other pre. paratory t9i1$ being dyed," and tpqGlnsist ICin:windil)gthe silk or oth.er thread upon the reel in the. form of ,a b!ln4,· in which the thread in .the manner-pow crosses from sid,e tQ side as it is wound, 1ij!11ot by passing one ,emp;IPyed,:.but JayerPYer t4e other.. I prefer Cl()SS in five-sixtqs of .one}.'eyplutiqn of; although \Yhen