the A prior patent to Bigelow shows a hat-sweat in which an independent tacking slip is secured to the leather band by stitches which pass over and inolose the reed of the tacking slip, or by a straight line, of stitchesjand when this tacking slip is stitched to the hat-body, and the leather band folded to its place, the stitches over the reed are on the back face of the band, out of contact with the head of the wearer. It is apparent that the hat-sweat of the claim is only new in the feature which consists in uniting the tacking slip to the leather band by a turn-over seam instead .of by the ordinary seam, in which the stitches perforate the outer face of the band. ThlS is not invention, not only because the turn-over seam was an old and well-known substitute for the ordinary seam in making garments, but also because that seam had been used in hat-sweats, as shown in the patent to Baldwin, as a substitute for the, ordinary seam, and for the purpose of protecting the hat from the perspiration liable to pass through the needle The bill is dismissed, with costs.
(Circuit Court, N. D. New York. October 28. 1889.)
PAftNT8 lI'OR INVENTIONS-ANTICIPATION.
Llltters patent No. 248,646, were granted to Charles Gordon October 25,1881, for improved apparatus for cooling and drawing beer. The specifications claimed as inventions the surrounding the faucet with a cold-air passage, an upper ice-box connectedwith the cold-air passage, Uy means of which the air cooled in the ice-box and the water produced by the melting ice cools the liquid in the supply.pipe connected with the faucet, and the surrounding the outer pipe with a non-conducting jacket. Claim 1 was the combination of the ice-box, supply-pipe, faucet, and coldair passage. Claim 4 was the combination of the ice-box, supply-pipe, faucet, lower chamber, and colA-air passage communicating between the ice-box ,and lower chamber. HeZd, that claims 1 and 4 were anticipated by an apparatus invented and put in use by one Meinhard in 1877, and used for four years, embodying the same prin. ciples as the Gordon invention, except the non-conducting jacket surrounding the air This jacket was simply a space filled with material, to prevent the absorption of heat by the air in the cold-air passage. This addition was common knOWledge and not invention.
In Equity. Bills for infringement of patent. For statement of the claims of the patent, and opiniOn on former hearing as to its validity, see 24 Fed. Rep. 743. John R. Bennett and George B. Selden, for plaintiff. Josiah S7!llivan, for defendants.
BLATCHFORD, Justice. These are two suits in equity, brought for the infringement ofletters patent No. 248,646, granted to Charles Gordon, October 25, 1881, for an "improvement in apparatus for cooling and drawing beer." It is the same patent which was involved. in the suits of Jlagin v. McKay and Mugin v. Welker, 24 ,Fed. Rep. 743, (decided by
me in this courl August 20', 1885.) In the opinion in those cases the material parts of the specification and the four claims are set forth and the operation of the apparatus is described. It was there held that, so far as claims 1 and 4 were concerned, the invention was anticipated by an apparatus put in use by one Meinhard, in Rochester, N. Y., in the summer of 1877, and which was continued in use about four years. A description was given of that apparatus, and it was held, on the evidence, that it was practical and successful, and embodied the same principle as that of Gordon; that it was continued in use for nearly two years after Gordon obtained his patent; and that, although it did not contain the non-conducting jacket surrounding the outer wall of the cold-air passage, which was a feature in claim 3 of the patent, there was no patentable invention in adding a non-conducting jacket to the elements found in claim 1, or to those found in cIai'm 4. Infringement of claim 2 was not alleged in those cases. The bills were dismissed on tha ground of the prior existence of the Meinhard apparatus. In the present suits infringement is alleged in each of them of claims 1 and 4 of the Gordon patent. The testimony on both sides taken in the McKay and Welker suits in regard to the Meinhard apparatus is introduced in evidence in the present cases, and voluminous proofs in addition have been taken by both parties in regard to that apparatus. A careful examination of all the evidence, with the aid of exhausth:e briefs for the respective parties, confirms me in the conclusion at which I arrived in the McKay and Welker (}zse8,-that the invention embodied in claims 1 and 4 of the Gordon patent existed in the Meinhard apparatus prior to the time when the inventien was made by Gordon, and that that apparatus was, practical and successful. The bill in each case must therefore be dismissed, with costs.
Co·. tI. WILLEMSEN
(Cf.rcuit Court. E. D. MC8souri, E. D. October
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-ANTICIPATION.
Letters patent granted to one Schultz, April 191 1876, for "a new artiole of manufacture,-leather having tanned surfaces and an mterior of pliable raw hide, "-are void as similar leather has been made by the same process in various parts of the country before the letters issued, and tbe only discovery, if al/.Y, is that leather imperfectly tanned is for some uses preferable to perfeotly tanned leather, and no such discovery is claimed.
In Equity. Bill to restrain infringement of patent. C. H. Kntm and W. H. Thurston, for complainant. ,Taylor & Pollard and Lubke & Muench, for defendant. THAYER, J. The specification in this case describes an alleged improvement in the method of manufacturing leather. The patentee says, in substance, that heretofore, in making leather, it has been customary
SCHULTZ BELTING CO. 17. WILLEMSEN BELTING 00.
"to tan the hide through and through, the hide for that purpose being
immersed in tan liquor for several months, and even years;" that by the old process the interior of the hide is tanned equally with the surface, the effect being to diminish the strength of the leather so produced as compared with raw hide. He further states that if the raw hide is not immersed in tan liquor at all, but is merely "fulled, curried, and stuffed," while the hide becomes pliable, and its tensile strength is increased, yet it is not durable, and will lack body and finish. To combine the advantages' of raw hide and fully tanned leather, the patentee then describes a process of manufacturing leather that differs from the old process admitted to be in vogue, only in the respect, that the hide is immersed in tan liquor for a much shorter period,-say, from 8 to 10 days,-the result being that the outer surfaces of the hide are tanned, while the interior stratum is only partially tanned, and retains all the qualities, including the strength, of fulled and stuffed raw hide, but is not subject to decomposition. Having described the process and the merits of the product,. the claim of the patentee is as follows: "As a new article of manufacture, leather having tanned surfaces and an interior of pliable raw hide, substantially as described." It thus appears that the patent in this case covers an alleged new product, the same being the result of a new or improved process; and it is not denied that such a product may be the subject-matter of a valid patent. Smith v. Vulcanite Co., 93 U. S. 489; Vulcanite Co. v. Smith, 1 Holmes, 354. The contention is, however, that neither the process described, nor the product claimed in this patent, was new; and to this point the evidence for defendant, as well as for the complainant, was chiefly directed. \ It will suffice to say that the testimony in the case shows to my entire satisfaction that prior to the granting of the Schultz patent on April 19, 1876, a very considerable amount of leather had been produced and sold at Louisville, Ky., Cincinnati, Ohio, and St. Louis, Mo., and probably at other points in the United States, having tanned surfaces and an interior stratum of pliable raw hide. The testimony of all the witnesses supports that conclusion, and the fact is not seriously controverted by complainant's counsel. I have no doubt, however, that very much of the leather of the kind last mentioned, that is shown to have been in the market prior to the date of complainant's patent, was what was regarded at the time as imperfectly tanned leather. The leather in question in many instances no doubt was withdrawn from the tanning vats before it. was tanned through and through, owing to the great demand for leather, and the desire of manufacturers to get their product on the market as soon as possible. Probably the manufacturers of such leather and the dealers therein did not regard it as being either as serviceable or valuable as perfectly tanned leather. But these concessions do not aid the complainant's case. The fact remains that the product claimed as the result of an improved process was not new. The same article had been prod:J.ced before, and manufacturers knew very well how to produce it before Shultz filed his specification. If he made any disC'Overy it consisted in his finding out that leather imperfectly tanned-which every