FEDERAL REPORTER I
ECLIPSE MANUF'G CO. 'lJ. ADKINS
(01lrcw£t OO'Un't, N. D.IZUtnatB. July 81, 1800.)
PATENTS I'OR INVENTIONS-DESIGN I'OR MANUFACTURE.
The idea of ornamenting the upper or lower portion of the pipes of a radiator to a uniform height so that it will present ornamental and plain parallelograms in contras.!t is patentable as a "new and original design for a manufacture" under Rev. St. u. S. Hil29.
SAlIIE-EvIDENOB 01' INVENTION.
The patentee is not shown not to have been the inventor of the design by the fact that his draughtsman made a drawing of the radiator pipes, showing their form and size, and an architect drew the figures for the particular ornamentation adopted in radiators manufactured and put on the market by the patentee.
Dyrenforth Dyrenfol'th, for complainant. E. S. Bottum, for defendants.
BLODGETT, J. This is a bill in eqnity, charging defendants with the infringement of design letters patent No. 17,270, granted April 19,1887, to Leon H. Prentice for a design for a radiator. The scope of the patent is desc.ribed by the patentee in his specifications as follows:
.. "The leading feature of my design consists in the upright 01' vertical pipes of the radiator, having a comparAtively plain or even surface for a portion of their length from the bottom up, and with an ornamented surface consisting, preferably, of embossed or depressed ornamentation at the top or upper part, the plain portion constituting the lower or base portion of the radiator. and the figured or ornamented portioDconstituting the top or crown of the same, the plain and figured portions offsetting each other, and presenting a contrasting appearance between the upper and lower parts of the radiator. These portions of the surface give the radiator a pleasing appearance. * * * Tne invention consists in the radiator, composed of a series of vertical pipes or loops of uniform heiltht, haVing the crown or top portion of the pipes or loops omamented or figured a uniform distance from the top downward, the portion below being comparatively plain. In this manner the ornamented and plain portions of the aggregate surface of the radiator constitute two rectangular parallelograms, one above the other. A similar effect w.ould be produced by transposing the plain and figured portions. What I claim Is the design for a radiator herein shown, consisting of a series of upright pipes or loops of uniform height, having the upper and lower portions of their aggregate surface distinguished from each other by ornamentation,. so as to preseut rectangular figures, A, B, in contrast."
The defenses set up are:
"(1) That Prentice was not the original inventor of the design covered by the patpntj (2) that defendants do not infringej (3) that the patent is void, as not being within the provisions of the statute which authorizes the granting of design patents."
It will be seen that this patent is not for any specific form of ornamentation. It does not describe what the ornamentation shall consis.t of furtherthll.n to say in the specifications that the patentee prefers "embossed or depressed. ornamentation," but what kind of ornamentation it shall be, whether a Greek pattern of lines, or a leaf, or vine, or scroll, or any other embossed or sunken figures, is not indicated. The sole
ECLIPSE MANUF'G CO. V. ADKINS.
scope of the patent is the idea of ornamenting the upper or lower portion of the pipes of a radiator to a uniform height, so that it will present ornamented and plain parallelograms, in contrast. As to the clair;n that Prentice was not the first to conceive the idea of thus ornamenting a radiator, there is no proof on the part of the defendant which shows that any person had preceded him in this field. The proof upon which the defendant relies in support of this part of the defense is that one Dixon, who was a draughtsman or designer for Prentice, was the originator of the design, and that a Mr. Root, who was an architect in the city of Chicago at the time, made the design for the particular figures which were ado,pted by Prentice as his ornament. I have no doubt, from the proof, that Mr. Dixon made a draft of the radiator pipes, showing their form and size, and that after he had so done, Mr. Prentice informed or directed Mr. Root, as to the locality of the ornamentation which he proposed to put upon the radiator; and that Mr. Root drew the figures for the particular ornamentation which Mr. Prentice adopted in the radio ators which he manufactured and put upon the market. But it will be noticed that Mr. Prentice does not claim to have been the inventor of the radiator or the radiator pipes. He simply claims his patent for the idea of ornamenting a portion ofthe pipes, instead ofleaving them entirely with plain surfaces, and for putting this ornamentation of uniform height on each pipe, so that the radiator would show an ornamented parallelogram and a plain parallelogram, in contrast. The drawing of the pattern, or figure, from which the pipe itself was to be cast, showing its shape and may have general form, is not what is covered by the patent, and been the invention or product of Dixon's mind. So too, the particular style of scroll work which Mr. Prentice adopted for radiators, which he was himself to manufacture, under his patent does not imply that Root was the originator of the idea of ornamenting a radiator in parallelograms, as is shown and claimed by the patent. This class of patents is allowed by section 4929, Rev. St., which provides: "Any person who, by his own 'industry, geniUS, efforts, and expense, has invented and produced any new and original design for a manufacture, bust, statute, aUo-relievo, or bas-relief; anj' new and original design for the printing of wooleD, silk, cotton, or other fabrics; any new and original impression, ornament. patent (pattern) print, or picture to be printed, painted, cast, or otherwise placed on or worked into allY article of manufacture; or any new, useful, and original shape or configuration of any article of manufacture, the same not haVing been known or used by others before his invention or production thereof, or patented or described in any printed publication.may, upon payment of the fee prescribed, and other due proceedings had, the same as in cases of inventions or discoveries, obtain a patent therefor." I am of opinion that the design covered by this patent comes within the first clause of this section as a" manufacture," rather than within the third clause as an "original impression, ornament," etc., as is insisted by the complainant's counsel. The second clause requires, as I think, that there should be a description of the design which is to be "printed, painted, cast, or otherwise placed on or worked into any article of manufacture."