OOmpam!lDt'spatent No. 16,040... In other words, if these old cases had been,govered by design patents, there would be much more ground fOl'ttulintaining a suit for infringement against complainant by the use ofthe:designs covered by compWnant's patents than there is, it seems to mel tOr maintaining an action against the defendants for the manu· are brought in evidence as allegedinfringements. Being, therefore;, of 'opinion, as already ,said, that patent No. 16,039, and the first; of patent No. 16,040, are void as being for more ,·than'Oue:ornament in each, and that all these claims in both patents are anticipated by·theolder arl,and that· defendants do not infringe, the ibill is diBtnissed for want of equity.,·.
DUXES f1·. BAUERLE
. Letters,patent No. 16;040, granted April 14, 1885. to NIoholas A. Hull, for "a deliitn:·fol' the Orriamentation' of semng-maohine cases, consisting of the main panel. ;Bj .g, t.b.e b.Y the .bO.rder .. of a series or bea4s" are not Infring"d by a whose front Is a lingle pleoe extending from corner ·to COrnel'; with a 'riled iJ1 the center SUl'rOUDded by a grooved and tbere.1a no Pl'!lelon the front of Inoh oue. .
John 11.: i EUiott, for. C()rnplainant. Poale& !J.ro:wn,. for
BLODGETT;,J.This,suit is for the alleged infringement of design patent No. 16;040, one of the' patents considered in .the previous ca:re. Ante t 778. It is not necessary that I should discuss at length the features: of this .patent, as they have been Jullyconsidered in the preceding opinion.' The infringement insisted upon in; this case is illustrated arid shown, it is claimed, by the complainant, in what is known in· the recordos"Complainant'sE?Chibit. Defendants' case D." With· out considering any other defense which has been discussed in the briefs or therecorlil.;.itas,sufficient, I think, to say that the defendants' case, ,in evidence" does not contain a front panel, the front of· the case being ,a single: pieceexotending .frorn end to end like, the side of a box, with a. l,'Jtwed ,centerl and around this center piece isa grooved and beaded uboJ;der.. ' What . I.havealready·'said in regard to the limited ,range or 8cdpe of, :thispatent, in the former case issuffici.ent, I think, "to show that this patent can only be maintained for the specifio device described in it, and certainly this defendants' case has not a pan· eled froiit.· Wabster defines a :panel "as a board having its edges in'serted,jp the groove ofa surrounding frame, as the panel of a
In Equ.itY.',i .
WINELAND tl. PITTSBURGH FORGE
In the light of this definition, there is no panel whatever upon the front of thiA case; and hence I dismiss this bill upon the ground that defendants do not infringe.
et. ale tl. PITTSBURGH FORGE &: IRON Co.
(Circuit Cowrt, W. D. PennsyZ'Vanfa. February 28, 1890.)
Pol'1'lll'B'rlii'01I.'INvBNTIONs-EXTBNT OP CLAIM-PRIOR STATB OP ART-DIBS POR FORGo
'ING :DBiAw-BABs. In view of the prior state of the art, the fifth and sixth cl$ms of lettera patent No. for an Improvement in the manufacture of draw-bal'!' for railway carst granr.ea to Dan St. Clair Wineland and Wickli:lfe C. Lyne on September 2. 1884, Ix aUBtalnable at all, must be held to be limited to the speclflo forms of dies ahowllm tllepatent. '
W. L. Pierce, S. A. Will, and S. U. 2Tent, for complainants. J. ·J. Johnsfun" D. a; Reindhl, and George H. OhM'!/; for respondents. McKENNAN and ACHEsoN, JJ.
AcS:!iSdN, J. The defendant is charged with the infringement of letters paten.t No. S04,391,gnmted to the plaintiffs on September 2, 1884, for an improvement in the manufacture of draw-bars for railway cars. The specification of the patent is, mainly devoted to a description of that method of manufacturing draw-bars, and of instrumentalities to be therein employed, in which the face-plate is made in two pieces, and each piece is welded to an end of the body portion, which being bent so as to bring together the inner ends of the two half-face plates, the latter' are welded together. Among the other described devices employed in this method of manufacture, the patent shows two dies, des-, ignated land k. The former is a bed-die having a deep cavity for receiving and holding the bent body portion of the draw-bar, and a shallow cavity,---a convex shaped recess,-lettered l', in its upper face, for giving the final shape to the face-plate, and in which the two half sectionsthereof lie when welded together. The die,k, is a drop dIe for shaping and welding the face-plate, and is provided with a central core, which enters into the opening in the face-plate, and with two outer jaws, ", which project horizontally outward beyond the edges of the cavity 1:, in the lower die, and act upon the outer ends of the two half face-plates, forcing them down into said cavity. The specification, near its Close, contains the clause: "In Fig. 15, I show a'modified way of forming the face-plate. Here the bar, b, is shown as bent in the manner described, without the sections of faceplate welded thereto. A ring or link, m, of metal of suitable size and shape. is placed over the ,ends; in the cavity. l', of the die,l, and is there subjected to a forging action of the die, k, which upsets it on the ends. a4 , and inv.41F.no.13-50