NORTHROP iI. KEIGHLEY.
et al. v.
(C£rcu(t Oourt, W. D. Pennsvlivania. December 10. 189L)
PATBN'l'8 rOB INVlINTIONS-INJ'BINGEMENT-MBTALLlO CEILINGS.
Letters patent No. 158,881. issued January 19.1875. to Henry Adler. are for a metallic,eeiling composed of panels of cold-rolled sheet-iron with turned-up edges. fitted into squares formed of furring strips nailed to, the joists. and resting loosely covered by a broad cap upon fastenings attached to these strips, the edges fastened to the strips. The specifications state that it is the object of the invention to provide, for the expansion ,and contraction of the panels. and that, theretofore, metallic panels had been fastened rigidly to the fUrrIng'strlps. Held. that the pat,;. ent was not infringed by a ceiling composed of panels with fiat edges, which were nailed rigidly to the strips, and covered by a secured by nails pusing · tween the edges of the panels. ' Letter&patent No. 830,915, issued November 24, 1885, to Albert Northrop. claim: "In a metallic ceiling. the combination, with corrugated sheet-metal panels arranged to form an intervening space between tbeir adjacent sides, and thereby allow of their expansi'ln and contraction in all directions, of a mOUlding strip overlapping the adjacent edges of the panelS, and devices passing through the moulding strip between the edges of the panels for securing the strip and panels to the ceiling," Held, that this was a mere mechanical adaptation of the Adler invention to the use of corrugated panels, and the patent is therefore void. '
S.UIE-PATENTABLE INVBN'l'ION-MBCHANIOAL ADAPTATION.
W. 'pakewelt crc Sons, for complainants. D. F. PaUerson, for defendimts.
Suit for infringement of a patent.
REED, J. The bill alleges infringement ofletterspatent No. 158,881, issued to Henry Adler, January 19. 1875, and now held by complainants" being for an improvement in metallic ceilings. The specification states that it relates t.o that class of ceilings known as metallic ceilings, "andco'J;ls,ists in constructing ceilings in panels, and from black coldrolled sheet-iron,and in securing the panels in position by means of secreted ;cleats and caps, .or ornamental side and corner pieces, so that the raeans.employed for attaching the metal ceiling to the under side of the. rafters are completely hidden from view." The inventor further says: 'class have been mude from galvanized sheet"Heretofore. ceilings iron screwed thegirliers by screws and similar attachments, which were IIpparent in the finished panels. and which held the panels rigidly. without allOWing for expansion or contraction. The object of my invention is therefore to provide a fastening that wiIJ admit of thf'l necellsary expansion and contractioll of the panel, that will be entirely hidden when the ceiling is finished, arid that can be reaqjJy and cheaply applied." , And again says: "Furthermore. the method of attachment. which has been by screwing the panels to the joists direct. did not leave room forthe expansion or contraction panel. and was such that the fastenings shoWed in the completed ceilings." As described by the inventor, the ceiling is constructed by fastening to the joists cleats or furring strips, forming a square or other pattern similar to the. ,panel proposed to be used. .The panel, formed of sheetiron. with the edges turned up to form flanges, is then inserted between
FEDERAL REPORTER 1
the furring strips, and supported in place by small fastenings attached to the cleats, and extending under. th'e flanges of the panels. A cappiece, broader than the furring strips, and thus extending under the flanges of adjacent panels, is fastened to the furring strip', and conceals it, as well as the edges of the flanges and the small supporting fastenings. ALe,l;lcl:l c9rnerof the it GomelQgether, rosettes or corner pieces are fastened to conceal the joining ertd$pJ tl1eCap-piece. If the and light, the supporting fastenings may be dispensed with,and the flanges of the panels rested 'Upon the thus has free play in case of expansion or contraction. The claim alleged to be infringed is as follOws: ""Incombination with the panel, c, the cap-pieces, 'D, and the corner pieces, E, substantiallyal:!. ana for the purpose specified." The defendants' ceilings were by fastening to the joists cieats or'furring strips in the forD;1 desired for the panel. 'To these strips the panel ofsheet-iron (without flanged or turned edges) was nailed sethe adjoining edges of: the panels were nailed metal strips or cat>"pieces" for the purpose of concealing the joinder of the edges, and at the several corners of the panels were placed rosettes or ornamental corner ,pieces. It appeared that the. purpose of these cap-pieces and corceilner pieces was simply tor ornament" and not support. When ing was completed, the panels were held rigidly iri place, no allowance being made for expansion and contraction. 'Assuming this to be a valid patent, its claims must, in my judgment, be narrowly Gonstrued, both in view oithe prior state of and the restrictions put upon them by the inventor himself, and it will hence be seen that the essential value of the patent lay in theproV'ision made forexpitnsion and con,The combination, "substantially as and fOf the purpose described,":of the panel, thecap-piece,and the cornE:r piece, does not existindefendants' ceiling. Their ceiling, as put up, fastened rigidly in constructed in the manneT by the inventor as in use fore he invented the im,provement described, aqd'Yhich he condemns, with the addition of the arid rosette for the purpose of concealment of the panel edges and of ornamentation., .. Such a concealing s4'ip, however, was not new, and had been usedpriort6 the invention in q\lElstion, and has been in common use in Gonstructions of wood, of an illustration is the strip used to cover the adjoining pieces of weatheT-boarding on frame houses, and only in this respect does the defendants' construction resemble the construction described in the patent. There being no infringement, the bill cannot be sustained upon this gNund. , It is also alleged, however, that the defendants' ceiling infringes a later patent, being No. 330,915, issued November 24, 1885, to Albert Northrop, the complainants' testator, for a new and useful improvement in metallic ceilings. '1'he ceiling constructed in accordance with the specification of this patent consists of panels"Ptefel'ably made' of corrugated sheet-iron, in order to stiffen the sheets and,pravide for theil'expansion aildcotltraction in one direction. that is, iii
a direction transverse to the length of the corrugations, and to form channels to direct the flow of any water that may find its way upon the upper surface of the panels of the ceiling. These pauels are applied to the furring strips in such manner that spaces will be left between their adjacent side edges to allow of the expansion and contraction of the panels, and also to form intervening passages or openings for the escape of water." These panels are loosely held in. place by supporting strips Or cappieces of metal, made with a central gutter running lengthwise, and which are nailed to the furring strips by nails passing between the adjoining ,edges of the panels. At the ends of the cap-pieces are placed rosettes to conceal their ends.' The specification states: ' "From the foregoing it will be observed that the panels are supported in position by the moulding strips, and are all()wed free and independent expansion and contraction, and hence will not buclde or wrinkle in use. The cor· rugation'sOPfrate to stiffen tb,e panl:'ls"and also to form·channels to direct the flow of water into the monldingstrips, should .any h'akage occur in the roof or water-pipe. The rosettes serve to conceal the fastening nails. and 'also serve as receptacles to catch the dripping of from the upper surface of the ceiling." " , ' It furtber states: ','I am aware that it is not new to emplOY nanged andsecure thl'm tocli'l\tslocated bptween the adjacent edge or by cap.pieces:hence I make no claim to sllchcombination." I : The claim alleged to be infringed is: "In a metallic ceiling, the combination, with corrugated sbeet·mebil pan· els, arranged to form an inter.vening space 'between their adjacent sidell, and thereby allow of thl'ir expansion and contraction in all directions, of a mOUlding strip the adjacent side edges of the panels, and devices passing through the moulding strip between the edges of the panels for securing , the striV and panels to the ceiling." , For the same reasons as stated above, I do not think the defendants' ceiling infringes this patent; but it is unnecessary in the view I tlle patent to speak of the qU,estion of infringement, at length, or to discuss the testimony in reference to other ceilingl:l, 0011· structed prior to the applications for either of the patents in question. In my judgment the later patent is invalid for lack of invention. The changes made in the construction of ceilings under the Adler patent, in order to construct a ceiling inaccordance with the Northrop patent, were' such as would suggest themselves to any ordinary mechanic. Corrugated was in common use, advantage that it had over flat sheet-metal was well understood. It required no exercise of inventive ability to substitute a panel with fiat edges for that with turried edges described in the Adler patent, and the mouldhlg strip and devices passing through it, between the edges of the panels, to secure the panel and the strip to the furring strip or c.eiling, as stated in the claim, are those of. the .Adler ceiling. Plainly, therefore, there is nothing which will sustain the patent. The bill must be dismissed, with costs. Lei a decree be prepared accordingly.
NATIONAL FERTILIZER CO.
(O£rcu(C Court, N. D.
The ordinance of San Francisco granting to Charles Alpars. exclusive right to remove from the cit:!' limits all such dead animals, not slam for human food, as shall not be removed by the owner in person, or by his immediate servant or empIOIa. within 12 hours alter the death thereof, and requirhlg the owner. if not inteniilng to so l'emove it himself. to immediatelY deposit a notice of the death In a box provided (or that purpose by ,AlperS, is a valid eX.ercise of the police power, and Is not open to objection ascreati\1ga monopoly, or as depriving persons of their property without due process of law; . S. B.um, . . the ordinance In term" RlVAsthe l'ight to remove the carcasses "from \jie 'city limits. " the f8.!lt .that the factory, where. the bodies are converted il1to commercial .products, is situated il1 "ButehetW""Il." within the city ; Umits; is no objeetiontoliis exclusive right,' as the purpose cif the ordinance is substantially elfectedb.v disposing of tbe carcasses so as to prevent the creation of a Duisance.
L CONSTITUTIOIUL LA.W-POLIOB POWER-MONOPOLIES.
".SAP. . .
The Ucensee's right, asaga,inst ever,. person but the owuer, attaches immediately on the death of the 8nimal, and ia not postponed until the expiration of the 19 hours.
. '. . ....
In Equity. Suit ;National Fertilizer Compll-ny to restrain W. P. Lambert and others Irom interfering with its rights under the "dead animal contract" of San Francisco, .Injunction granted. Langlwrne <Ie MiUer 1 "., R. Ha/rruon and Lloyd <Ie Wood, for responqen1;s.
HAWLEY, J.,(orally.) This is a suit in equity to restrain respondents from infringing upon the exclusive rights and privileges of complainant under what is commonly known and designated as the "dead animal contract." The board of supervisors of the city and county of San Franciscoj on December 11, 1882, passed the following resolution, viz.: "Resolved. that for the period of twenty years from and after the 1st day of December. A. D. 1882, Charles Alpel's,the assignee of Gustav Wetzlar of the contract with the city; a'nd county for the removal of dead animals from the city limit,. bearing date May 29, 1866. or the assigns of said Alpers, shall have and enjoy the exclusive l'ight and privilege of remOVing from the city .limits all carcasses of such dead animals, not slain for human food. as shall not be removed and .so disposed of as not'in anr manner to become a nuisance, within twelve' hOU1'S next after the death of the same. by the owner thereof, or the person in whose possession such animal may· be at the time of ita death. or by the immediate servant or employe of such owner or person; "ResolVed, that for the. purposes hereof the said Cbarles Alpers or his assigns shall keep up a?dmaintain order boxes.forthe receipt Of notices for the removal of such,carcaslles of. dll8d in conspicuous at the new city hall and health city and county; and the same shall be labeled. 'Ordets 1'or the Rem6valof Dead' Animals.' ... the.owrlersof any RniiiJal that slum die within the city within, the said periOd of twenty)'earsfrom and after the 1st day of December, A. D. 1882, save such as shall be killed. for human food. or the person in whose possession such animal shall be at the time of es death, shall, immediately upon such death. notify the said Charles Alpers or his as-