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
to, the ,cavity. V.' welding, ihllo former. ,'and giving itthMI,liape Ofdllie .;]aHer l " i,' ;'-,k·.: " : I " : ; , ; .. ,, The plaintiffs allege that the defendant infringes thei,Ji'hh:'fii:id'mxth claims of the patent, which are as follows: "(5) The face-plate shapin.g a,lld wcldiJ,1ggie, l, having a cavity for containing the body of the bent draw-bar. and a convexed shaped recess for shaping and welding the face-plate, substantially as and for the purposes described. un Tbecombinatij)p ,of '!on,d,.fflding die.l. with thedrbp die, k, baving a'core which' enters theopefilng In une face-plate when acting thereon in the die, l'. substantially as and for the purposes described," ," ,',' t I ' '
claIms emorace, 'and the scope that can nghtfully begi\len'.to :them, It ,wW', attNs ttl' proofs, .tlleifij;t(I"Qt:theart antedor. Wtbe:daf.e'Ofthe alleged lIlv:entioo, .',.Now, "cilertai1!iti!iS"that"long ptevltll1s1y'the shrirtltaneous' welding of metals by dies was well known and commonly practiced; and it was .one very old in the art to employ two dies acting against '<:lnVs other having · or . ,,It tp m the maJ:1ulacture of draw-bars patent No. 117,954, of a date so early as August 8, 1871, for improve"' 4ra Pj)up1i g" .. .e'.. . . a. .·... fqr ..,.l\I¥ng, h . or. b.e.. d · fape, ,anp. a -Ap,d 1l;}ay be. She0 .. . eo.'.m. Ip,Rll.,.'e;p, .the.,nrta.,.lo.pg):)e./o.ra . .of J,llyentNn In quest\.Ql1, two t.qe.Q.te . . .... . ,i.l)g:cav . ,t.oa.ctR.s a. gUid ... ..e¥>th.e · ·. dated ()¢tober,2, ,the steps for d.rawfOr, referred to,in .wbiQh the, patellt shows a . on.,.o.;.r.· r. · d.)'I"e.ld.in.g. t.th. ., the. weld,ing etwo half ll-ccomphshed by the use o,fa Cinove.d.,:d.ie.,;i 'a p No..,; 26. dated. N.9 ..vember 14,. . "shows for for,ming th!'J fa,qe;-plate, the having a deep cavity tq body of blank for t4edraw-bar, and a ",iderfj.at tpeupper face of die to Jpehettd' a flat wOl'khlg fao!" . Finally, the drawmgs.,pf i ,264,015, gated September 5, .}882,.f?r. o( exhibit everythmgsho\tn by FIg,'I5 of al1d,w,lth moreac.. do ?f, to "each, :rlpg " .for (ape-plate, ,a1,1l1, theenqs ..of Qfwelding them to· gether.; r Then. jn. f,he ·body of the,speoiflca.tion"the, following instructions . are ,.;/ .1' · · .' ·.' , ' ·
WINELANI) tI. PITnlBURGH FORGE & IRON
"The rin'g blank thus fOl'med, and the open ends of the blank A, Fig. 2, being raised to a welding heat, are, placed together, as represented in l<'ig. 4, the sides, c, C, of the ring placed upon the end faces. a 4, of blank, A. and the two thus welded together by ",hat is known as a ·butt weld.' . In do. ing this. the bod'y blank, A.may be set in the cavity of a suitable die, with the ends. a 2,protruding a. little, or the' parts may be welded upon an anvil, in the usual manner of working iron. " Nothing is expressly said in that patent about. the use of a drop-die, hut it going too far to say that the employment of a device then SO well knowll, and commonly used in working iron, is fairly to be implied. :'10. view, then, of the restricted field of invention open to Wineland i, and, 'under the decision. of the supreme court in Peters v. Manvjacturirt[!. 00.,J3()U. S. 626, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 643, where it was held that thailhe Peters patent of July 17, 1883, for "an improvement.in dies for making dash frames," was invalid for want of patentable invention, it is a serious question whether the fifth and sixth claims of the patent in suit, or either of them, can be sustained at all. But, if sustainable, be held to belimited to the sp\:lcific forms assuredly must the of dies shown in , The defendant manufactures draw-bars by the second above referred to,in which the ring for the face-plate and the body portion are forged separately, and the two afterwards are welded together; and are designed lUld adapted for use in tbatmethodofmariufacture only. In doing that work, it is necessary that the upper ends of the of the body portion, when the latter is set in the cavity o.fthe lower die, shan protrude above the forging face of the die, the in Wilson's, pateq,t' of 5, 1882, and l,npractlce oftheends upwar(lly IS about two and a half inches in extent. The object of this is to provide the reg l1ired metal for forming the fillets or curved enlargements, on the underside of the face-plate, and to perfect the weld between tll&face-plate and bars, and strengthen the latter. Now, to the end that thEl'1ing maybe guided aright, and kept in proper position with respect to the protruding ends of the bars, and also for the purpose of confining the metal during the upsetting operation,' and securing its spread in the desired directions, the side ,walls of the oval cavity or chamber in the defendant's lower die are carried n,p at least four inches above. the forging.face of the die, and in this ,particular the defendant's lower die differs from die l,of the paient. Then, again, the defendant's upper die does not have the plnintiffs' horizontal projecting flanges' or "jaws, but it enters audfits closely the oval cavity or, chamber of the lower die. The plaintiffs' drop-die, indeed, could not be used in combination with the defendant's lower-die, for theUjaws, k,''', would prevent its approach to the metal in tbechambet. . ,These. differences'between the diesol the two sets are decisive 'of the case-,!',fQf Wineland was a mere improver (exhibiting, at best, but a low degl'E;Goforiginality) ofelddevices\: and there is no basis forthesuggestion,tht¢ the defendantihasmade merelyeolorable changes. ,In our
jUdgment, the proofs establish that the peculiar features above mentioned, present in the defendant's dies, are necessary for the acdom m.ent of the work required of them, and that, both in construction and It is operation, the dies of the respective parties differ m.anifest from the patent itself that the dies land k were specially de· signed for use in that system of manufacture first described in the specification, and treated therein at such length, and they work efficiently in welding together the two half face-plates as the last step in that method. But the evidence satisfies us that those dies nre not adapted for successful use in the system of manufacture practiced by the defend· ent. Upon the whole, we are of opinion that the chnrge of infringement here made has not been sustained by the proofs, and the bill of complaint must be dismissed. Let a decree be drawn dismissing the bill, with costs. .'
INNIS'tI. OIL CITY BOILER WORKS.
(O'£rcutt Oourt, W. D. P.ennsyWanta. February.28,
':. PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-PRIOR STATE ,Ol' THE ART--STEAM."ENGINEB.
Letters patent No. 230,946, for an iliiPTovement in steam-engines. 'grantlld to Will· lam,J. Innis, August consideree'!. with reference to the priorst3te of the art, and construed, ane'!. hew, not to be infringed by the defendant's engine.
S.u.m-EXTENT OF CU.IM:"'-EXHAUST CJuMBER FOR STEAM-ENGiNES. '
,,' '.W.he.re.,in a p.atent.for an impro.vemen.t in steam-e.nginest:each Uf. thlhjlaims sp.eci:llea.as one of the elements an "e;x:haust chamber, "the e'!.eslgnatipn.illA lim· it&:tion, importing a compartment fOr bole'!.ing spent steam, and a construction of the claims'whioh woule'!. take ina live 8team passage-way is inadini8sibls.'
..... · Jarn.eB;,(J. Boyce I\nd W. Bakewell, for complainant. 0.60" H. Jvhn K. HaUvck, ,for respondent. Before MCKENNAN and ACHESON, JJ. , ACHESON, J. This suit is brought for the-alleged infringement ofletters patent'No. 230,943, fOf all improvement in steam-engines, granted to WilliaJll;J. Innis, August 10, 1880. The declared object of the inventionis construct "the cylinder, steam-chest or valve chamber, and exhatlstcham,ber of in a better, stronger, more compact, and cheatwfmanner tha.n has hitherto been done, and to effect a frea discharge condensed water. from the cylinder. 'rhespecifkation furtheraets, forth that .as generally constructed the cylinders of steam· engines aredirst cast·separately, and must be planed and finished to receive the steam-chest, which must be likewise finished, "as also the exhaust chamber;" and tbeseare then secured together by bolts and nuts, which iaex;pensive, and leaves the joints liable toleak. It isihen stated that. ,to obviate these difficulties, the ,patentee casts the cylinder, (A,) the or valvechlll11ber, (B,) ahd the exhaust chamber, (0,) all in