greater tightness of weaving, due to the observation or skill of the workman. and of the perfection of the machinery employed. If the attained is brought about simply by mechanical skill or knowledge that belongs to that department of labor rather than the result of mind or genius of invention, it does not entitle the part.y to a patent. Tatham v. Le Roy, 2 Blatchf. 474. Combined results are not necessarily a novel result, nor are they an old result obtained in a new and improved manner. Simply bringing old devices into juxtaposition, and there allow:ing each to work out its own effect, without the production of something novel, is no invention. Hailes v. Van Wormer, 20 Wall. 353. ThiB principle is aptly stated by Judge THAYER in Brinkerhoff v. Aloe, 37 Fed. Rep. 92: "Where several old elements are so combined as to produce a better instrument than was formerly in use, but each of tbe old elements does only what it formerly did in the instrument from which it was borrowed, and in the old way, tbecombination is not a patentable one." The application of these rules to the facts of this case, without further argument and demonstration, which may be expected on the final hearing, leaves my mind in such a state of uncertainty respecting the patentability of the complainant's device as to compel me to refuse the temporary injunction, in the absence of any prior adjudication determining the validity of the patent, and in the absence of satisfactory proof of gen27 Fed. Rep. 457; Dickerson v. eral acquiescence. Fraim v. Iron Machine Co., 35 Fed. Rep. 143; Booth v. Garelley, 1 Blatchf. 247. In addition to all of which the proofs show clearly that the respondents are possessed of large and valuable property and are perfectly solvent. The complainant is not a manufacturer, but simply holds this patent for the sale of licenses. He has an established license fee, so that the measure of his damages if his patent be fiMlly established is easily ascertained. In such case the court may well refuse the provisional writ. Morris v. Manuf'g Co., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 67; Machine Co. v. Hedden, 29 Fed. Rep. 147; Rude v. WestcoU, 130 U. S. 152, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 463; Bell v. Stamping a>., 32 Fed.: Rep. 549; .smith v. Sands, 24 Fed. Rep. 470; Hoe v. Adver.lise?' Corp., 14 Fed. Rep. 914. The preliminary writ of injunction is refused.
(01Jrcuit Court, D. Indiana.
December 12, 1890.)
A bill in equity seeking an injunction and the recovery of damages for the infringement of plaintiffs' patent, and also an injunction and damages for the publication of slanderous circulars concerning the patent, is multifarious, no good reason beinK shown why relief for the slander should not be soultht in a court of law.
2. PATENTS FOR INvENTION-NOVELTY,
Letters patent No. 384,842, for the improvement in anti-rattlers for thill couplinKs, consisting of a bent steel plate, which has been used before, with the .Jdition of anothel.' plate, are void for want of novelty.
FOUGERES V. MURBARGER.
Where, on demurrer to a bill for the infringement of a patent, it appears upon inspection of the letters patent that they are invalid on their face, the court oan 80 pronounoe them without proof.
In Equity . ants.
On dem urrer to bill. Cowgill, Shit·ely & Pettit, and O. P. Jacobs, for complainants. Foster & Freeman, Redding & Redding, and Griffiths & Potts, for defend-
WOODS, J. The bill is multifarious. The complainants seek to enjoin and to recover damages for infringing their patent. and also to enjoin and to recover damages for the publication of slanderous circulars cerning the patent, and their rights thereunder. If entitled to relief at all, upon the facts stated, on account of the alleged slander, no good reason is shown why they should not seek it in a court of law. See Chase v. Tuttle, 27 Fed. Rep. 110; Kidd v. Horry, 28 Fed. Rep. 773; CarWheel 0,. v. Bemis, 29 Fed. Rep. 95; International Tooth Crown Co. v. Carmichael, 23 Ch. Legal News, 141; Francis v. Flinn, 118 U. S. 385, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1148. In respect to the alleged infringement, the question is whether or not the patent sued upon is, upon its face, void for want of novelty. The patent in question is No. 334,842, for an improvement in anti-rattlers for thill couplings, of which the specifications and claim are of the tenor following: "The object of my invention is the prodnction of an anti-rattler for thill couplings. made of plate steel or other suitable elastic material, bent upon itself, apd adapted to be inserted between the ears of the jack·clip, and hav· ing two curves or corrugations upon its face·front, one of which has a bearing against the thill-iron. In the accompanying drawing, forming a part of D X this specification, the figure is a perspective view of the anti·rattler embodying Illy invention. A represents it steel or other suitable elastic plate, bl'nt forward at a, and having a returning bend at a'. The outer limb, B, is formed with a limb rib or corrugation, b', and has a curved par. tion, c, between a' and b'. From b' to the end of the plate is a curve, c', adapted to fit against the back part of the thill-iron, and, by pressure against the same, prevent rattling, as is well understood. To the forWardly projecting part, X, of the spring-plate, is secured by rivets, or in other appropriate manner, the plate. D, which forms aT-head, adapted to rest on top the ears of the jack-clip, thus preventing the spring from falling or working out in a downward direction, while the rib between the two curved portions, c, c', prevents it from working out in an upward direction. By making the sharp return curves at a', the spring is easily inserted between the end of the thill.iron and axle-clip. I am aware that anti-rattlers have heretofore been made of single plates of steel bent in various forms. I therefore desire to restrict my claim to the specific device herein shown and described. "What I claim is the anti-rattler for thill-couplings hereinbefore described, made of a steel or other elastic plate, with the sharp return-curve at a', the curved portions, c and c' , and rib, b' , in the outer limb thereof, and baving
the back part bent forward at a to form the part,X, and with the plate, D· .securedthereto.:" ' With a distinct concession in the face of the patent that anti-rattlers had theretofore" been made of single plates of steel bent in various forms," it was insisted in argument that the claim of this patent for any feature of novelty must rest upon the introduction of the plate, D, in the mannerand for,th:e purpose indicated, and that this was not invention. On the other hand, after reciting the general averments of the bill in respect , to invention and novelty "admitted by the demurrer to be true," counscUor the ,conwlainants says: "And it,can be shown. if 'theavel'ments of the bill are true, that the improvement ,made hy Blair was both new and useful, and involved invention. This was to the patent-office officials. and they had the Whole older art before them. when they allowed this claim." But counsel ,made no suggestion how it was possible, in the face of the concession in the patent,to show any element of novelty or invention except the plate, D, and the court cannot see, and did not understand counsel to contend, that the introduction of that plate into the claim or combination could in itself be called invention. If it is possible, by specific averments the general allegations found in the bill, to show that there was invention in this device, the bill may be amended for that purpose, but, as it stands, I do not think the defendants should he put to the trouble and expense of making proof. For cases upon demurrer to the bill, in which the courts have looked at the letters patent of which prQfert was made, and have held them invalid their following: Bogar v. Hinw, 25 Fed. Rep. 484; West v. face, see Rae, 33 Fed. Rep. 45; Studebaker Br08. ManuJ'g 0'0. v. IUinbi8, etc., 0'0., 42 Fed. Rep. 52. The demurter is therefore sustained.
EDISON ELECTRIC LIGHT
UNITED STATES ELECTRIC LIGHTING
(Circuit Court, S. D. New Yor1t. October 18,1890.)
PATENTS POR INVENTIONS-AcTION FOR INFRINGEMENT-PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS.
Complainant: in an actton for the infringement of a patent made admissions, on an application for another patent on which letters never issued, which defendant contends greatly restrict the. claim of the patent in suit. that complainant could not rehse obedience to a subprena, auces tecum to produce such application, and the correspondence with the patent-office in regard thereto, on the ground that such documents, if produced, wouid be immaterial. as the court will not pass on that question until the evidence is before it.
The fact that the application for the unissued patent and the letters to the patentoffice in regard thereto lire the result of conilult/ltions between complainant and his counsel does not rellder tbem privileged as confidential communications l since they ceased to be confidential when complainant 'and his counsel parted witn exclusive knowledge of t\lei.r contents by sending them to thepatent-office.