BURGES! t1. 'CHAPMAN.
the invention, viz., the taking an' already, body-threaded screw i:md aut;.' ting a point updn it by a subsequent operation, so thatbothi thl'eilds i shall coincide, this being done by,the action ,of the threaded rest and ' the screw, as a leader, to im part motion and pitch control to the tool j carrier. A guide, which was then a well-kno\vn instrumentality,wol:iM", in his judgment, be used, as a matter ofcotirse, in connection with the' pointing tool. This part of the invention is far from being contained in' the second claim, which was for the invention, which he characterizes i as his "second improvement," and was expressed almost in the language' of the descriptive part of his specification. The patentee deemed that a' specific part of his invention was the serial tool, made with a series of; cutting edges, in connection with a former which so controls the radial; movement of the cutter that as it is carried forward by some actuating j means successive shavings will be cut from the point of the blank. In-' asmuch as this claim is substantially in the language in which the enteedescribed his second improvement, it would be a strained con· 1 atruction to import into it t",o omitted parts of mechanism. The'pat.:. e11too regarded his serial tool and the former as a separate and dibtinc,t invention, his patent was accordiQgly, and, the phraseology the,: third which was not specifically and in terms used, not be pushed into the patent by reading into the claim for the, second' two unnamed elements. Tne theory of the plaintiff's C;l:\se is that tlle validity of the second claim requires Wll$ given to The bill is dismissed.
BURGESS 11. CHAPMAN
(CfreuU Oourt, D. MaB$achusett8. Decembe,r IS, 1890.)
Claims I and 2 of letters patent No. 2-;6,iOll,granted to J. W. Knell, OctOool' 1&, 1811H, for improvements in illusory dramatic effects. for a combination whereby all the incidents of a horse-race may be simulated, are not void for want of novelty, most of the elements are old, as in no prior device are the elements so eombined,ad to'l?roduce the same effect.
INVENTlONS-ILLUSORY STAGE EFl'ECTS-NOVELTY.
In Equity: " Frederick P. F'iBh and Simond8 ff Burdett, for complainant. James lI. Lange, for delendants.
COLT, J. This is a motion for a preliminary injunction. The bill sets out two patents granted to J. W. Knell, (who is the same person as the complainant,) for improvements in illusory dramatic efiects. The first pateut, No. 256,007, dated Avril 4, has Jor its object the production on the theatrical stage of the appearance of a person, animal, or vehicle traveling along a road of considerable length. The second patent, No. 286,709, dated October 16, 1883, consists of an appa-
ratus to de,termine the position, upon the endless path or road shown in the first, patent, of a horse or other moving animal. By means of the devicesdeacribed in the second patent, as the specification states, "all the incidents of a horse·race may be simulated, the horses alternately gaining and losing ground." This result is accomplished by means of an endless belt or path made sufficiently strong to bear the weight that is put upon it, hung in a suitable frame, and secured below the level of the stage floor; a windlass, mounted upon a suitable stand adapted to be firmly fixed in a position in line with the endless path; a rope or wire, secured at one end to the saddle girth or moving object, and, at the other end, wound about the winkilass, and a brake or lever secured to the stage floor, so as to control the revolutions of the rolls upon which endless path travels. 'rhe claims relied upon on this motion are as follows: (l) In a stage apparatus of the within-described class, the combination of tll,e, Elnp.lesspath, a, the windlass, b, the saddle or saddle-girth, d, or other part adapted to be secured to a borse <>r Qthel' moving object ' upon, the path, and the wire, e, connecting said windlass and harness, and constructed to be extended and retrlilcted,all SUbstantially as described. (2) In; 'a 'stage apparatus, the combination of the moving panoramic scene, h, witb ,tbe endless path, a, the windlass, b, the saddle-girth, d, or otherharnl:ll:ls part, and the wire, 'I, all substantially as described. The substantial defense in this case is the want of patentable novelty device in view of the prior state of the art. The affidavits upon this point are voluminous, but they range themse1vet;'under three heads: (1) The apparatus produced at Neitsch's Theater, Galveston, Tex., about 1860, in a play called "The Frontier." (2) The apparatus produced at the Walnut Street Theater, Philadelphia, in a play called the "Gross of Lead," in June, 1878. (3) The apparatus produced at the Globe Theater, Boston, ina play called 'lSi Slocum," in September, 1877. Without entering into a detailed discussion of these prior stage devibes, this can be said, that no one before the complainant ever oonstructed an apparatus to produce the effect of a horse-race upon the -While it: must be admitted that most of the elements that enter into the Burgess combination are old. still I do not find in any prior devlce .tbewindlass. wire, saddle-girth, and tread-mill, so combined as to produce the effect described. Upon a careful review of the wholeevidence, I shall sustain the first and second claims of patent No. 286,709, and grant the moUon for an injunction. Motion granted.
TUBMAN V. WASON MANUF'G CO.
TUBMAN 'V. WASON MANUF'G
(Oircuit Court, D. Massachusetts. December 19,1890.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-SUITS FOR INFRINGEMENT-PLEADING.
In a suit for infringement of letters patent, complainant will not be allowed to file a supplemental bill, making other persons defendants, in which the principal allegation is a charge of conspiracy between the original defendant and such other persons, to maintain the defense, and whic,h does not allege that such other persons have infringed the patent, where defendant excepts to its flling,·and noth-, ing has occurred since the filing of the original bill requiring a supplemental bill. The court will not compel defendant to fllean ink-drawing of an exhibit. whioh is, on lile in pencil, on complainant's motion.
InEquity. , James H. MandeviUe, for complainant·. Benjamin Price and Andrew for defendant. COLT, J. The complainant in this case moves for .leave to file asup-, plementl:tl'bill. The original suit was brought, by the complainant ai the owner of letters patent No. granted to George S. for certain improvements in the constru'cti()Ilo'[ railway cars. . The bill, charged infringement On the part of the defendant, the Wason Manu7'. facturingCompimy, and contained the usual prayers for an injunctioll; and account. By the proposed su!)plemental bill, the Boston & Alba,ny, Railroad Company, the Boston & Lowell Railroad Compauy, the Colony Railroad Company, and A.' A. Folsom are 'made defendants, and' the main allegation of the bill is a charge of conspiracy entered into between the original defendant; the Wason Manufacturing Company, and these other delpndants, to maintain the defense of this suit. The bill further alleges that these defendants are members ofan association comprising over one hundred railroads, and called the" Eastern Railroad Association," and that the Wason Manufacturing Company handed over to this association the defense and maintenance of this suit. The bill then sets out certain facts in support ofthe alleged conspiracy between,these de-: fendants. The bill prays that an injunction may issue against the Wal30n Manufactllfing Company, restraining it from conspiring with the other defendants, apd that it be ordered to take upon itself thedefense'of this suit; also, that these other defendants may be restrained from intermeddling in or maintaining the defense of this suit; also, that the Wason' Manufacturing Company, or the other conspirators, be compelled to pay over to the complain;.mt, by way of damages, all the expenses thus' far incurred in the prosecution of this suit. . The allowance of this supplemental bill is not assented to by defendant, but is excepted to on several grounds, viz.: . ..
(1) By the proposed supplemental bill an entirely new and distincUl[Isue is sought to be raised. (2) Becallsl' the suit is not defective, and nothing has the tiling of the original bill.wllicb calls for or ing of asiJpplemental bill. (3) Because bill complainant proPO!!elI to file is not asu:pplemental bill or continuationoBhe ol'iginal suit, andwo1:d(f'fn