TSHEPPE f1. BERNHEIM.
Supposing the patent valid, what does it cover? Substantially it is for the collar with locking device to adjust it on the shaft or spindle, and the links or levers connecting the collar and vanes, whereby the latter .may be shifted and held inposition,-in combination with the shaft and vanes as shown by the model. Thus broadly stated, the combination is old. As before suggested, the same elements similarly combined, are found in the various prior patents relating to windmill fans. The patent must therefore be regarded as for an adjustable collar, having a spring plug for Jocking the same to the shaft which it incloses, the levers connecting the collar and vanes, and the peculiar vane bearings, in combination with the shaft and vanes, as described in the specification and shown by the model. III other words, the patent must be so limited as to .confine it to the exact combination shown, including as necessary parts the peculiar locking arrangement and vane bearings. and their plain and direct equivalents. The claim to substitute any and every other mechanical contrivance for these latter parts is clearly inadmissible. Such substitution would deprive the combination of aU possible claim to novelty. Thus limited, the patent is not infringed. I need not enlarge on this subject. It is sufficient to say that the respondent's device does not embrace the locking arrangement or vane bearings, or their direct equivalents. Whether the other elements of the two. devices are the same .need not be considered. It is certainly easier to distinguish the respondeI1t'sfrom the complainants'thun it is to distinguish the latter from those which preceded it. A decree must therefore be entered dismissjng the bill, with costs.
TsHEPPE t7. BERNHEIM:
(Of.rCUiU Court, B. D. New Yor7c. April 14, 1890.)
PA.TBNTS :rOB INvENTIONB-OOBINGBMENT.
In a suit to restrain the infringement of letters patent No. 897,259, issued Febru· ary 5, 1889, to Adolph Tsheppe, for napbthaline paper, where the only question at islue was as to infringement, and tbe uncontradioted testimony of an expert showed that defendant's paper was manufaotured in the manner described in said patent, hekl, that an injunction and an accounting would be decreed.
Prank V. Briesen, for plaintiff. H. A. WeBt, for defendants.
SHIPMAN, J. This is 110 bill in equity to restrain the infringement of letters patent No. 397,259, dated February 5, 1889, to Adolph Tsheppe, for a new naphthaline paper. The invention related to the manufacture ·of a paper or fabric with a coating of naphthaline on both sides, which was to serve as an insecticide in preserving furs and woolen goods fropi ·being injured by moths or other. insects. The patentee says in his
specification that his invention consisted "in immersing paper, preferably not sized, first into a bath of molten naphthaline of a temperature as near the congelation point as practical for the operation of dipping, by which a heavy deposit of naphthaline is obtained. '.I;'his deposit is crystall.ine aud porous, peeling off easily, and its surface is rough and warty, brit, if the paper covered with its first coat is then dipped rapidly into a bath of molten naphthaline of a higher temperature,-say five degrees, -then the interstices between the crystals first deposited are filled up, and the coating becomes hard and compact, and the whole product is of a porcelain-like appearance, with smooth surface. By subsequent dipping,this coating of naphthaline may be increased in thickness to any degree." It appears from the specifica.tion that it had been proposed to make naphthaline paper by embedding a layer ofnaphHmline between two layers of paper. H is obvious that a profuse evaporation is furnished from the large surface of the patented paper, and that the naphthaline accomplishes its work without staining or entering into the meshes of the goods. The claim is as follows: .. As a new article of manufacture, the sheet a, having a coating, b, of
naphthaline, in two or more superposed layers, the first presenting a rough appearance, the second filling up the interstices of the first layer, and presenting a hard, compact, porcelaiti-like appearance, with a smooth surface, substantially as described."
. The defendant upon the argument made no criticism upon the patentability of the invention; there was no testimony upon the SUbject; the state of the art was apparently as recited in the specification; and, as the article is out of the domain of common knowledge, I have no reason to doubt the propriety of the action of the patent-office. The only question in the case is that of infringement, and that can hardly be called a question. for the defendants have no knowledge on the subject,-had no testirnony,"':"while the complainant's testimony was intelligent and definite, from a witness who is a competent expert, and who says that the article which the defendants have sold is manufactured in the manner described in the patent, and the exhibits apparently corroborate his ?pinion.. Let there be a decree for an injunction and. an accounting.
Co. 'D. MAYOR, ETC., OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
S. D. New York. April 14, 1890.)
For INVENTIOliIS-INFRINGEMENT-PLEADING. Under Rev. St. U. S. § 4886, which provides for patents for inventions which have l10t b,een known or used by others in this country, and not patented or described in any printed publication in this or any foreign country, and not in publio use or on sale for more than two years before the application t a bill for injunction which alleges that the patentt;le was the original inventor of tne patented improvement, which had not been patented to others with his knowledge or consent in any country, and had not, to· his or the orator's knowledge, been in pub-