of inventive 'genius.. "A largenutnber of caster wheels, or wheel in evidence, but I failto.find anything in '.and: in the Meagher & Tower patent of March 10, 1885"pr:.the! E. D. Meagher patent of February, 1882, which are by th.e defendant, which anticipated either of the features in complainant's plow now in controver8y. The ir:>' upon the assumption that the ar-, rangementof:tpe. partsoHhe complainant's device is such as "to give the which the point moves in the arc of a circle through plow a the wheela, and ill tpe Ill'C of. a circle in ,line with the center of the axle, the tUrning point 1?einga,littl¢ back of the extreme point of the plow, ao that in turnio,g the plow in: the ground it will swing without affecting ride on. the point, leaving .the wheels' free to travel the around iQ a true circle, without straining the frame, and to improve genthe·QOnatruction apd operation of the machine as a whole.» out c;liscllSSing the queE\tion as to what liniits must be put upon this claim by thai,papers inthe file-wrapper in evi;. deuce, it is sufficient, I think, to say that the defendant's plow is not prgllnized so as to secure this pivotal position for the point of the plow, the point of the plow being several inches to the right of the A:;enterof tne axle, and not in. the .center .of a circle drawn from the axle' to the pivot of the caster wheel, and hence does not, in my estimation, tb.;is ·The bill,is thereforesust;lined, so far as the alleged infringement of the sixth, ninth, tenth,and 'hvelfth claims is concerned, so far as the alleged infringement of the fourteenth claim is: charged. r$JU»,EllJ or.
HOLTZER el al.
HoIit'ZER-CAno'r' .ELECTRIC Co. el al.
(CireuU Court, D.Ma8saclllIMettS. February 14, 1890.)
l'A.TB'NTII 1I'OB INVENTIONS-Ao!rION lI'OB IN1I'JUNGEMIlINT-!NJ;JNOTION-ELBOTltIO Llc,lHTING APPA.lU.TUS. '. ' ., .
Letters patent No. 280,590'issued July 27,1880, to Jacob P. Tirrell, for improvements hi electri6 gas-lighting apparatus, COll8lsting of mechanism whereby the gas-cock is turnEld by one iplpulse, iBnot sOlUanifestly infringed 1;Iy a. d&' vice by which the cock is turned by a series of impUlses as to warrant. the issue 'of apre1iminary injunction. '.' ' ,
, . Letters patent No. 281,84;5, issued JUly 17, 1888, to Charles H.. Crockett, for 1m. ':.1.: 'Po rovements. in electti.c gas-lighting apparatus, consisting, in combination with the ""l'9Cking valve of·a gas-bul'nar, of two: independently acting armatures, pivoted to r, .!5trill:e projections on' the of .the valve, is. not so manifestly infringed by a de'vice by wllich thegas-eock'iS turned by means of a ratchet and. pawl as to warrant . the 1aiIue ofa .. .
In Equity. ,On motion for injunction.
BOB'tON ELEO'.tBICc::o. fl. KOLTZBB.
,johh:E. Abbott, for complll.inant. Li:IJeimm'e;' ,FiSh &: Richardsoti, for defendants.
,C6tT,J. These cases were heard on motions for a pre1iminaryinjunctiort. The defendants are charged with infringing letters patent Nj>. 230,590, granted July 27, 1880, to Jacob P. Tirrell, and letters No. 281,345, issued July 17, 1883, to Charles H. Crockett. Both of these patents relate to improvements in electric gas-lighting apparatul'l. In the case of this complainant against Fuller, (29 Fed. Rep; 515,) this court had 'occasion to consider the Tirrell patent, now in suit. It was said by' the court in that case: "In gas-burners, there is a portion of the tube, between the cock and, the end of the tube, which becomes ·full of air when the gas is turned off. When the gas ilJ again turned on, a little time is required to expel the air from the ,It, only one electric spark is. produced at the tip of the burner the instant the gas-cock is turned, the airwhuld not have escaped, and'the gas rna,. notbe lighted. In the patented apparatus, the gas-cock is opened by a and, bypressllre on the button, & succession of sparks is :produced !'t the burner-tip by the intermittent vibrations of the movable eleetrode'and,the armature, al1dthese vibrations occur without further moving of the gas"cock, by reason oftha notch in the, forked end of the.lever.In clO!lingthellas-cock, no spat;k; isproduc\!d at the burner-tip. Th llr6 is evithis apparatus was the, first which operated successfully in houseit it is appa,rentthatthis apparatus .wasnot antlclpatMby the Tmell lDventlOns of 1871 and 1872,ll.nd eontain'ecHn' patents 121,302 and 180,770, nor by the Cutler patent No. 220,704. : Nonlf'of these prior devices were so constructed that by the action of the electric eutrent the gas-cock is turned by a singie impUlse, ana a succession of spll-rks is produced at the burner-tip without further motion of am also satisfied that this improvement over prior devices constituted invention." lThe first claim of the Tirrell patent, which is alone ill controversy, reads as follows: , . ','. " a magnet for turning the gas-cock by one electric impUlse, combined with a fixed electrode, a', and a movable electrode, c', normally in contact, and mechanism connecting the armature with the movable electrode to break the contact between a' and c' the instant after the gas is turned on, and create a spark for ignition, SUbstantially as described." It will be observed that an important feature of the Tirrell invention is turning the gas-cock by a single electric impulse, and this is made one of the elements of the first claim; in other words, the claim seems to be limited to an apparatus for turning the gas-cock by one electric impulse. In defendants' apparatus there is a lever on the end of the gas-eock, in connection with a ratchet and pawl, and thus the work of opening the gas-cock is divided into short steps; consequently, the defendants employ a series of impulses to open the gas-cock in place of a single impulse. It is said that this construction possesses certain advantages which it is unnecessary to enter into. I am aware that the experts for complainant disagree on the question whether the defendants' apparatus requires a series of impulses to open the gas-cock. But, up-
on the affidavits before me, and from what :ll,ppears to mechanical I feel structure of the defendants' device, aEl' shown in the to at least for the purpose of this motion, that the defendaklts'arerighti1'1 their contention. So far, then, as the Tirrell'patent is concerned; theissbenarrows itself down to this: Whether the Court should enjoin the against the use of-a burner so constructed that the gas-cock is opened; by a series of electric impulses, when the ,claim of the Tirrell patentinakesthe turning of the gas-cock by a single impulse one of its most important elements. On a motion for an injunction pende'Y!te lite, where the mind of the 'court must be satisfied on the subject of infringement, an injunction should not be ,granted under these circum'stances. ' , Wecome now, to the Crockett patenLCrockett states that' the object 9f hiainven1it>n is to simplify the construction of electric gas-lighters so that ,the parts ,operlite and ,be cheap ofproduction;Thli first follows: , " , ' ""In combi,Dation :with the of a Iy' acting armatui"es., piv<lted to strike projections on ·tb.e of, the valv\? to,1loct, one to open ,the val,te, 'and the other to'close'it. and uate the arroaturelll'su!bstantially as and,(or the purpose , ; In view' of thepnot'/3tate of thellrt, lam inclined ' to think-that the Orockett or what Iscleal'lyequlVl\lent. In my tht:l :opemng the gas-cock; and especially the employment of and which are 'found in the defendants' burner,should not bt:l'considered eqUivalent of the projections at the end of the valvt:l, and the opening described by Crockett. Without entering upon the' other claims of the Crockett patent relied upon by the complainant, I am satisfied that unle!ls a construction &hould be given to the Crockett patent which; considerthg the state of the iut, would be unwarranted, the defendants' '!;>urner does not infringe that patent. At least, I have so much doubt u.pon that injunction shOUld issue. Motions denied.
WILLIAMS lIANUlr'a CO.
CO; "'. FRANKLIN
et al. J
(Circuit Cowrt, D. Delaware.
PATBNTS FOR INVBN'1'IONB'-INVBN't!ON-BASKETS.
The tlrst of letters patent No. 313,910, dated March 17, 1805, for a wire hoop surrounding the staves of a basket, and having its ends bent around the opposite edges of'one of the staves, does not cover a patentable novelty.
A patented .stave basket cOnsisted of an ordinary stave basket, having stays extendinA' over certsinof the staves, from the top to the bottom of the basket, and a wire lloop surrounwng thE! basket between the staves and the stays, beldIn position by nails driven through the stays and staves beneath the said hoop. TheWire hoop waS old, and the addition ,of stays not asserted to be an original device. Held, there was no invention in supporting the wire bythenaUs.
i ' ;"'.
. . .' . " ., eqqity by the Manufacturing Company aga.irist lamJ ··Franklin and Franklin, trading as Franklin BrOil·· to' strain infringement of patent. ' ;,,: , GmQUyBr08·· for . , Goo. Gray and H. H.Ward, for defendants.
W'ALlllS, J. This is a s'\lit in eqUity for the of ent No. 818,910, dated ,Mal!ch 17, 1885, granted the .8;8 assigriee0f Roland S.Bartlett. The subject of t)le patent is a sl;ave 1Iasket which is used for carrying fruit and garden truck, in measured qUllolltities, ready for market;, and the alleged infringement is the manufacture, sale, and use by the defendants oftruck or fruit ;embodying the covered by the two claims of the which read as follows: . "(1) The combination. with the staves of a basket. of a middle hoop.,encircling the basket. and having its ends bent around the opposite edges of one()f ,the staves. substantially asdesqribed. .'. · . . .. , .. (2) The CQmbination. in basket. of the bottom. the side tb,e hoops at the top and bottom, the re-enforcing and sustaining st8ys.F.seciirtld by nails to the upper and lower hoops, the middle hoop overlaid by the stays, and nans,n, dri'Ven through' the' stays and staves under said middle hoop. whereby the latter, is supported. substantially as described." The essential feature of the ,Bartlett basket, and on which the validity of the complainant's patent depends, is the mode of fastening this middle hoop by nails, staples, or double-pointed tacks, driven through the stays andstave&. The first. claim, which is simply for a. middle hoop of wire surroullding the basket, and having its ends bent around the opp015ite edges orone of the stavea, presents no novelty whatever', either by itself or in combination with .other parts. Time out.of mind, wires ijave -beell Ilecured in the ,same or manner to innumerable objects, and for various purposes; In fact, an old stave basket, which is one of the deI
Reported by Marke Wilks Collett,' Esq.· of the Philadelphl.a bal'.