FEDERAL. REPORTER,. vol.
::was a part of the hat-felting machines made by George Yule in 1879. As stated by the defendants' expert,the construction of both boxes is such that the frame which receives the box holds it inclosed between two sunken surfaces, and at the same time allows it to adjust itself in alignment with the journal of the roller with which it used. The minor details, which are mentioned in the sixth claim and not in the fifth, I do not consider. of patentable importance. The seventh and eighth claims relate to the patented device for an adjustable stop; which consists of a vertical screw which is a.ttached to the under side of the table; and its lower end is received within a tube which is attached to the treadle. On the screw above the tube is a hand wheel. By turning the hand wheel it is rt,n down; and when the treadle is released from the pressure of the foot of the operator the tube on the treadle rises up, and strikes the under side of the wheel. The tube rises up and strikes. the stop, whereas in the Russell machine the treadle This particular kind of adjustable stop rises up and strikes the was apparently new, but a brace or a screw within a sleeve was not new; and there was no invention in having the sleeve or tube which was attached to the treadle strike the handwheel or the stop instead of having the treadle strike the stop. It was a modification of the previously existing stop mechanism, which had the advantage of strength, but was within the ordinarj' scope of the skilled mechanic. The bill should be dismissed.
WILSON et al.
Oourt, W.D.PennsylAJania. Novembe'r2'l',1889.}
Letters rfatent No. 824,922, dated August 25,1885, issued to JolIn M.pavidson for an improvement in sucker-rods for deep wells, describe the invention as being a section ,for deep-well sucker.x:ods, consisting of a spirally twisted metal rod, having at one 13nd a threaded pin and at the Opposite end a threaded box, both integral with the rod; the twist of the rod being in reverse direction from the thread of its connectiQn. H,eZd, that the device is not anticipated by metal lightning rods of the same form; its use being in no wise similar to that for which the latter are adapted·.
In Equity. Bill for infringement of·' patent. James a. Boyce and D. F. Patter8on, for complainant. W. Bakewell SOnB, for McKENNAN, J. This bill is founded upon letters patent No. 324,922, dated August 25, 1885, issued to JohnM. Davidson, for an improvement in sucker-rods for deep wells. On the 6th day of October, 1885, the patent was duly assigned to the complainant. The patent contains two claims, both of which are alleged and shown to have been infringed. The invention, as described and claimed,consists of a section or length for deep-well Bucker-rods, consisting; dia spirally twisted metal rod.
COCHRAN V. WILSON.
baving at one end a. threaded pin and the opposite end a threaded box; said pin and box integral with the rod, and the twist of the rod being in reverse direction from the thread of its connection. The essential features of the invention are: (1) A spirally twisted metal rod; (2) a threaded pin and box at opposite ends of the rod; (3) that the pin and box and rod shall be of one piece of metal; (4) that the twist of the rod shaU be in a reverse direction from the thread of the. pin and box. All these features are embodied in the sucker-rod made and sold by the respondtJllt(3j and hence they are inti-ingers, if the patent is valid. The only ground urged in the argument which is of notice is that the patented device was anticipated by metal lightning-rods, which were made and in common use years before the date of the patent; and that; therefore, the application of the device described in the patent to the use therein stated is only a double use of an old and well-known device. Formally the two devices are alike; but in the lightning-rod the threaded pin and box at each end of the sections, by which they are made extensible, are not integral with the rod, and it does not appear tbatthe twist in the lightning-rods is in a reverse direction from the threads in their connection. These are notable differences in their construction; but in the uses to which they are applicable, and for which they are specially adapted, they are entirely dissimilar,-in no wise cognate to or suggestive of each other. .The use, then, to which the patented sucker-rod is adapted, and for which it was intended, is so different from that to which a lightning-rod is applicable, that it would seem to indicate a new use for the former, and not a cognate or double use of a known device. And if the changes made in the patented sucker-rod, to fit it for its new purpose, involved careful experiments, it would seem to be entitle,d to patentable Ir;Ierit. This is the import of numerous cases, both Englisb and American. Thus in Harwood v. Railway 00., 2 Best & S. 208, Chief Justice COCKBURN thus$tates the law: "Although the authorities establish the proposition that the same means, apparatus, or mechanical contrivance cannot be applied tQ the same purpose, or to purposes so nearly cognate and similar as that the application of it in the one case naturally leads to application of it when required in some other, still,tbequestion in every case is one of degree,-whether the amount of affinity or similarity which exists between the two purposes is such that they are substantially the same,-and that determines whether the invention is SUfficiently meritorious to be deserving of a patent." And in the same case, in the house of lords, (11 H. L. Cas. 666,) Mr. Justice BLACKBURN said: "In every case arises a question of fact, whether the contrivance before in use was so similar to that which the patentee claims that there is no invention in the differences, if any. lJetween the old contrivance and that for which the patentee claims a monopoly; and, if there is none, there arises a further question of fact, namely, whether the purpose to which the contrivance was before' applied" and the new purpose, are so analogous or cognate that there is no discovery or invention in the new application; whether, in short, it is a. mere application or not. For, if there is invention or .dis«overy producing
it is the valid 8ubjectof RPatEmt."
Many other EnglislfbMes are in entire accord with this; so, also, are a majority of the cases. . "In ObZlar Co. v; WMfe, 7 O. G; 698, in which the patent in questioncontained lI. dlahri for "a shirt col1lh', cdrnposed of paperand muslin, 'or'its e<r/livalerit, $Qunited that the muslin will couuteract' the fragile it was shown that paper and muslin had before united in'·'afabric for maps, etc., itwas held by the court that this use was n9t to that to which the patentee had adapted tHem; and that therefore' the patent was valid. The weight of American authority is in Hine with this view of the law. . It is not nece.ssary to refer to the CRses irl'detail. Most of them will be found in Merwin on tbePatenbibility Of iIllventioIls. ' ,It is obvious that the use 'If sucker-rods for deep wells is not analogOUs ta that for wh.ich metal lightning-rods ;are used, or to which they are iii itny way adapted,and hence that the latter do not anticipate the fotnler as a patentable' subject. The patent in 8uft'must therefore be sustained; and a' decree will be entered for an injunction and .an account, 'With 'costs. .
17. THE HARRIET
(Oircuit OO'lih"t,D. South Oarolina. February 1, 1800.)
was taken siok, and was unable to do al/.yworkuntU thellohooner reaohed Charleston, where he helped get the vessel to the wharf, and was'then sent to the hospital, the vellsel returning without him. Held, that he wasentitied to recover wages for . the whole voyage. . , .
t.SAME--BIilUOK OJl' CONTRAOT.
.,()tage iii a little over a month. A few days after leaVing Philadelphia, libelant
Libelant shipped on board a sohooner for a voyage from Philadelphia to Charleston and back, not til exoeed three months in duration. The schooner completed the
The fact that he had S' :short time before shipping on the sohooner been in hospitalfol" treatment for a ,disease diJ!erent from that by whioh he was afterwards attaolted., llUt had beendisohal'ged from hospital as oured" does not show suoh a brea,ohoi',the oondition thathe was able·bodied as to avoid the contraot for wages.
'Itappeal'ed that, the.libelant left the schooner for the hospital, the master and mate, who had shown him all kinllness, and for the purpose of further favoring him, colleoted his olothes and deposited them in the wharf office for him. Held, that the libelant oould not m,aintain a olaim for damages because some of his olothes were missing.
In Admiralty. Libel for wages and damages. O. B. NorthrlYfJ' for libelant. H. Sinkler, fdr responaent.
SIMONTON, J. The libelant shipped before the mast on the echooner Harriet C. Kerlin, at Philadelphia, on 21st November last. The shipping articles provided for a voyage from Philadelphia to Charleston and