BUZZELL 'V. O'CONNELL.
COUNTY OF STANTON.
(Cif'cuit Oourt, D. Ndlraska.
November 10. 1880.)
(CMcuit Ovwrt, D. Ma88achu8ettl. October 15, 1880.) 1.
No. 100,229, issued to Herbert L. Willis, for an improved sand-paper holder for finishing or " buffing" the soles o( boots and shoes, 8U8tained.
In Equity. George S. BoutweU and 0008. Allen Taber, for complainants. Ohauncey Smith and Samuel W. Bate8, for defendant.· LOWELL. C. J. Herbert L. Willis obtained patent No. 100,229. now the property of the complainants, for an improved sand-paper holder for finishins-or "buffing" the soles of boots and shoes. He described a cylinder formed of two halves hinged together; round each half the sand-paper was wrapped, and its edges were brought together on the inside of the cyl. inder and kept tight by pins and dowels; journals were shown to which each end of the cylinder was attached by screws. The old form of holder was described as solid, with the sand-paper
wrapped around it and secured by tacks. "This mode," says Willis, "is very imperfect, there peing several objectiona to it: First, the lapping of the edges of the paper makes the surface irregular, causing unequal wear, and not smoothing the soles perfectly, besides rendering the paper liable to be torn off; second, the frequent driving of the fastening tacks into the roller soon cuts up and destroys the surface thereof, especially if the wood is soft, or,if the wood is hard, the tacks are often broken and it is difficult to draw them out; third, the labor and time requh'ed to make the frequent reversals of the paper are considerable; fourth, the unevenness of the lapped paper causes jarring and unsteadiness in operation." The defects are said to be removed by the new mode of construction: "The edges of the sand-paper do. not lap on the surface of the cylinder, thus leaving the surface perfectly regular and concentric as the holder revolves. The paper also is held more securely, and wears evenly, doing good work, and the sheets are quickly taken off and replaced." He described another short cylinder, of large diameter, which was to be added to the holder for the purpose of finishing the instep under the heel. The first claim is: "A sand-paper holder, for finishing the soles of boots and shoes, composed of two parts, A, B, hinged together at one edge, and fastened together by screws, or the equivalent thereof, with or without the enlarged holder, composed of hinged parts, C, D, similarly arranged, substantially as described." The second claim was for the dowehJ and pins, and has. been The evidence tends to show that a buffer made according to the patent is useful; and cylinders are now very extensively used to theaavancement of the trade. The defendant uses a holder or puffer, which, whether an infringement or not, is an undoubted improvement over that described in the patent. It consists, of a cylinder cut wise and hinged in the middle, with sand-paper. Instead of being secured to journals ·,by. ordinary screws running tIl rough the cylinder into the journal, it is fastened by So
movable clamp of ingenious construction, patented 'by Fay after the date of Willis' invention. Both parties use felt under the sand-paper, which appears to been introduced by Howe, whose patent is also later than Willis'. The defendant has a right to use these two patents. The defendant insists that Willis made no invention which will support a patent. Solid cylinders, with sand-paper tacked to them, had been used before; and one Copeland had, as early as 1855, made and patented a hand-tool in which the sand-paper was wrapped round two halves of an ellipse, which were hinged by a piece of cloth glued to each, and was held firmly together by the hand of the operator, who rubbed the soles with this tool, much as he would have done with a large file or rasp havipg a handle at each end. The de.fendant contends that the only change which Willis introduced was to cut the Old solid cylinder into two parts and hinge those parts together, just as Copeland had hinged his hand-tool; and that this did not require invention. How generally the old solid cylinder was used, .and whether it was of much or little value, weare not informed. I infer from the remarks of one witness that the patentee's cylinder, or those like it in principle, first brought buffing by machinery into common use. SUE.posing the old solidoyli"nder used in a machine driven by power to have been of some use, and to have been generally known, still, I think, there was a patentable improvement in cutting it in two, bringing the parts together, and fastening them to the shaft, BO that 'they should operate like a solid cylinder, though the 4inged tool to be operated by hand had already been introduced by Copeland. The advantages of the knife, and this mode of adjustment and of operation, are so different in the two cases that one could hardly be an antici· pation of the other. It seems to me that the defendant infringes the first clai,m of the patent. He has abetter working tool; but His made on the principle of the plaintiffs' patent. It is a cylinder cut in two, hinged, wrapped with sand-paper, and held together and upon the journals by a shaft. It may be that the' particular mode of fastening is new in this' tool. There is no evidence upon that point, except
that it is patented; but I do not find the plaintiffR'first claim to be so narrow that a new mode of fastening, operating to do the work of their screws, would escape it. Decree for the complainants.
SIEBERT CYLINDER OIL CUP Co. 0. HARPER STEAK LUBRIOATOR Co.
((hi-cuit Court, D. Connecticut.
October 25, 1880.)
L RE-IssUE-NEW MATTER. - A device was patented as for a lubricator actIng'by steam pressure. Subsequent investigation led to the conclusIon that, although steam rendered slight assistance, hydrostatic pressure was the active agent. Thereupon a new arrangement of parts was made in which the latter principle only was used, and the ,econd device was patended. HeJ,d. that the patentee could not subsequently obtain a re-issue of the first patent which would cover the method of feeding a lubricant by means of hydrostatic pressure alone, operating through devices substantially as shown. 2. SAME-SAME-DEFINITION.-By new matter is meant "new, substantive matter, such as would have the e.ffect of changing the invention, or of introducing what might be the subject of another application for a patent." P()'IlJMr Co. v. P()'llJde1' Works, 98 U. S. 126, followed. Yale Lock Manufg Co. v. Scovill Man'Uf'o Co., 3 FED. REP. 218. distinguished.