FOOS MANUF'G CO. t7. SPRINGFIELD ENGINE " THRESHER
The proof in the case also shows several patents on plows prior to the Starling patent where the plows were organized so as to raise the forward end of the plow-beam first, among which are the Baker patent of December, 1860; the Frasier patent of April, 1861 j the Sattley patent of February, 1864; the Davenport patent of February, 1864; and the Davenport patent of February, 1866. So that the advantage of first raising the point of the plow, instead of the heel, in order that the forward movement of the team would aid in running the plow out of the ground, was well known in thf:l art ,long before the complainant's patent. And although the lifting devices of these old patents may not have been the same as used by complainant, the forward end of the beam was lifted, and the advantages of doing 80 well understood, before this patentee adopted his method; and it certidnly did not require inventive genius to apply to any plow, at the date of complainant's patent, the idea of lifting the forward end of the plow-beam first in order to secure the aid of the team in running the plow out of the ground, and in any of these old bail plows that end could be secured by locating the bail forward of the center of resistance. For these reasons, I conclude that the first claim of the complainant's patent is void for want of novelty. Bill dismissed for want of equity.
t7. SPRINGFIELD ENGINE
(C1n'cuit Court of Appeals, B13:th Circuit.. Ootober 6,189L)
"Letters patent No. 359,588, issued Maroh 15, 1887, to James F. Winchell, for a crushing and grinding mill, consisting of the "combination with a main, shaft and grinders and a moving conveyor of a plurality of intergeared crushers, mounted to crush the material for the conveyor, and having protuberances which extend approximately in line with each other, one of said crushers being geared with the main-shaft," being a combination of old elements, are void for want of invention, in view of the prior state of the art, as shown by tbe Roberts mill, which the patentee had seen, and by the Baldwin patent. (No. 1,199,) of June 26, 1889, the Beal & Hale patent, (No. 4,895,) of December 17, 1846, the Newlous patent, (No. 8,425,) of October 14, 1851, the Nichols patent, (No. 9,330,) of October 12,1852, the Wilson pat. ent, (No. 12,977,) of May 29,1855, the Vascomb &; Guirand patent, (No. 20,810,) of May 10, 1888, the Hope patent, (No. 22,807,) of February, 1859, and the McCulla patent, (No. 29, 612,) of August 14,1860.
PATBNTS FOR INVENTIONS-INVENTION-PRIOR ART-CRUSHING-MILLS.
Even if oonsidered Valid, the patent must be limited to the particular structure de. scribed, and is not infringed by a mill in which the projections on the crushers are not in line with each other, and the crue,hers, instead of being geared to the main shaft, are geared to a counter-shaft, which derives its motion from the main shaft by means of a belt. 44 Fed. Rep. 595. affirmed.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western Division of the Southern District of Ohio. Suit by the Foos Manufacturing Company against the Springfield Engine & Thresher Company for infringement of a patent. Judgment dismissing the bill. Affirmed. v,49F.no.8-41
, Before BROWN, Citcuit Justicerand JACKSON, Circuit Judge; .
<fe'Bowman, for appellee. .
'JAcxsoN" Circuit Judge. This is a suit in equity, brought in the cirCUitcourt of'the United States for the western division of the southern distriot of Ohio, for the alJegedinfringement of the first claim of letters patent 359,588, granted March 17,1887, on an application filed November,16, 1885, tothe complainant, as assignee of James F. Winchell, for impro\'ements in' crushing and· grinding· mills. The circuit SAGE, presiding) entered a decree dismissing the bill, with coets.1 The opinion of the court is reported in 44 Fed. Rep. 595, and it appears 'therefrom that the dismissal of the bill was placed upon three. grounds: F'irBt. That in'view of the state of the art, as shown in prior patentS, :s.nd maahinesinuse beforetbe qate of said tion: '£01' letters patent on his iinprovements in crushing and grinding mills;, there was no patentablE! novelty in his alleged invention. Second. That the combination attempted to be made and covered by the first e1ai'm i o(:E\aid letters patent was merely the aggregation of old and.wellkn<nvn.;'pevices, each operating in ,the old way and producing no new result, itnd was therefore void, under the well-settled rule announced by the supreme court in Hailes v. Van Wormer, 20 Wall. 353; Pickering v. McCullough, 104 U. S. 318; Royer v. Roth, 132 U. S. 201, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 58; and Heating 00. v. Burti8, 121 U. S. 286, 7 Sup. Ct.. Rep. 1034. uAnd, tltirdly, that defendalltls tmlchine did not infringe, even assuming the validity of complainant's patent. The complainant, in support of its appeal' from the decree dismissing its bill, has assigned for error the foregoing findings and rulings of, the court below, in connection with; others, not deemed necessary to notice specially, in. the view we take Qfthe case. ' The fuvention sought to be covered by said letters patent, as stated in the st>ecification," to certain new and useful improvements iu crushing and grinding mills, for reducing corn-cobs, roots, bark, bones, and to a broken state; and, 8econdly, to a granular or finer state." .The specification and drawing disclose two crushing alid one grinding device·. The initial. crushing device, consists of two cylinders placed horizontally opposite and rotating towards each other, each being provided with teeth, projections, or protuberances extending "The crushers are sufficiently "approximately in line with near to 'each other to cause the crushing protuberances of the respective (initial) crusHers to stand either in line with each other, as seen in Fig. 2, or to lap each other, or to not quite reach each other," a.nd one of said crushers is geared with the main shaft. The material to be reduced ill' firsthtoktenby this <ilevice, and then drops into the second device, consisting of a cylinder and concave .provided with a moving conveyor, where it is still further reduced; and from thence, by means oBhe conveyor, it is carried to the vertically arranged grinding disks, where the final operation is performed in the way ofreduction. Each of said de-
FOOS MANUE'G 00. V. $PRINGFIELD ENGINE '" THRESHER CO.
vices i.s a combination in itself, and operates separately and sucoessfully upon the material to be reduced. It is clearly shown that each of·said devices or separate featlues of the mill,and the operation thereof; JVas old and well known. The claim based thereon, and alleged to be fringed, is as follows: "In a mill, the combinatioDwitha main shaft aodgrinders and a moving conveyor of a plurality of intergeared crul:lhers, mounted to crush the material for the conveyor, and having protuberances .which extend approximately in line With each other; one of the said crushers being geared with the main shaft;· Without passing upon,the question whether tllis claim is fora mere aggregation of old deviceS or elements, operating in the old way, and producing no new results, and therefore void, as held by the court below, un.. del' the decisions referred to above, and reaffirmed in the more recent cases of Florsheim v. Schilling, 137 U. S. 64,11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 20; Mill Co. v. Walker, 138 U. S. 124, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 292; Setter Co. v. Keith, 139 U. S. 530,11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 621; Electric Co. v. La Rue, 139 U. S. 601, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 670,-we are clearly of the opinion that complainant's patent is void for lack of invention, within the rule laid down in Aron v. Railway Co., 132 U. S. 84,10Sup. Ct. Rep. 24; Dayv. Railway Co., 132 U. S.98, 10 Snp. Ct, Rep. 11; Gardner v. Herz, 118 U. S. 180-193, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1027. It is shown by the testimony, and clearly appears from an inspection of the two mills, that what Winchell, the patentee, did, was simply to add to the old Roberts mill the intergeared initial crusher, so as to produce two crushing operations instead ofone, and thereby remedy in some degree the defect in said Roberts mill. This initial crusher arrangement was frequently sold separate, and added to the old Roberts mill. It is further shown that, as far back as 1876, Roberts had attached to hismill the double or initial breaker, and operated the same in cutting and crushing weeds; that said Winchell saw the mill thus operated with initial or double breakers as early as the fall of 1876, and that he was not the first to conceive the idea of making such an attachment to existing mills. This Roberts mill shows substantially, if not identically, the second and third devices of com plainant's mill, with the same mode of operation; and after Winchell had seen the double crushers, cutters, or breakers attached to that mill, and operated so as to give a double crushing reduction to the material experimented with, it was not open to him to appropriate the idea or suggestion, and make it the subject of a valid patent. Again, when the state of the· art, as disclosed in the prior patents produced in evidence, is considered, we think it clear that the improvements made by Winchell involved only the exercise of mechanical skill, and did not rise to the dignity of invention, such as the law requires in order to justify a patent therefor. A briefreference to the prior patents which wa think sustain this conclusion will be sufficient. In the Baldwin patent, (No. 1,199,) dated June 26, 1839, "for improvement in the machinery for crushing and grinding corn and cob for stock, and corn and other grains for stock and family use," there are two crushing cylinders,with teeth orprotuber-
ances in the forro of deep flutes, which perform the initial operation of reduction, by further reduction of the material by means of grinders, of which there appear to be two,-a coarser and finer,-the latter being connected with n concave bed. The specification that"This machine is applicable, and we intend to apply It to, the crushing and grinding of various kinds of grain, etc. We do not claim to be the inventors of toothed iron. cylinders, or to be the first who have applied them to the crushing and grinding of corn and other grains. But we claim Lo be the inventors of a machine for that purpose, such as is herein described, in which the article to be .crushed ground is acted successively upon by crushing and 'grinding cylinder8standing in pairs, the one over the other, and combined with a small grinding cylinder and cave, constructed and operated substantially in the manner set forth. II In the Beal&Halepatent, (No. 4,895,) dated December 17, 1846, for a new and improved machine "for cracking and crushing corn and cobs together," an.d also for grinding other material, there are found two crushing cylinders, of different sizes, having teeth which pass between each other, moving in opposite directions. These cylinders perform .the initial crushing or breaking operation upon the material to be r!'lduced. Underneath the main cylinder is placed a hinged, adjustable COJ;1cave, adapted to the same, with projecting teeth similar to those on sai<i cylinder. The teeth in the concave pass between the teeth of the main cylinder,and a set·screw is provided for rllgulating the distance between the concave and the main cylinder. The operation of the mill is thus described: "The corn on the cob, or6ther',8ubstances to be crushed, is placed in the hop· per over the [initial crushing] cylinder, and is drawn in between them. The rapid. motion of the teeth on ,the main cylinder crushes and breaks the sub· stance against the teeth on the [other] cylinders. The article the concave and main cylinder, and is again crushed then is carried and broken up still flner getweert the stationary teeth on the concave and the teeth on the tilaln cylinder." . : Here we have two crushing devices and operations. In the Baldwin are found one crushing and two grinding devices and operations. It would hardly invention to supplement the two crushing devices of the Beal & Hale patent with the addition of a grinding device, so as to produce what complainant's counsel consider the essential merit of the patent sued on, viz., that of a double or dual crushing and a single grinding arrangement. Nor would it involve any exercise of the inventive faculty to drop one of the grinding devices of the Baldwin patent, .and substitute therefor either the first or second crushing device of the Baal & Hale, patent. In the Newlous patent, (No.' 8,425,) dated October 14, 1851, we find initial crushing cylinders in connection with grinding cones, so constructed as to produce gradual and successive reduction of the material. The specification states that "the corn in the ear, to be crushed, is thrown into the hopper, and as the crushing cylindersrevolve inward, and towards one ,another, the ears of corn are
V. SPRINGFIELD ENGINE & THRESHER CO.
seized by the teeth plates, [on the cylinders,] and crushed into small fragments, which fall between the cylinders into a receptacle below," where it is kept stirred, to prevent packing, and from thence into the grinding cones, consisting of two sets or sections; the first, at the smaller end,being provided with large, teeth, and the second, toward's the larger end, with the finer teeth, turned in the opposite direction,by means of which arrangement there is, after the initial crnshing, first a coarse and then a finer grinding of the material. In the Nichols letters patent, (No. 9,330,) dated October 12, 1852, "for a new and useful machine for crushing and grinding cobs, corn, and other substances," we find from the specification and drawings that the initial crushing device was composed of two cylinders, the substances to be crushed and grouild being first operated upon by the teeth on one cylinder into annular grooves in the other cylinder; and it is said in the specification that"":'" "Series of teeth on one cylinder, acting into continuous grooves in the peripheryof another cylinder, I find to be much more efficient and rapid for crushing and grinding purposes than when the teeth on said cylinder act between series of teeth on another cylinder." In the Wilson patent, (No. 12,977,) dated May 29, 1855, for an improvement "in machines for crushing and grinding corn," we find initial crushing rollers, provided with V-shaped teeth, which serve tt> prepare for crushing the grain for the final grinding operation. In tne Vascomb & Guirand patent, (No. 20,310,) dated May 10, 1883, for an improvement in grinding-mills, there· is shown breaking rollers with teeth, and adjustable. so as to suit for breaking the cob as well as the corn, together with a cylindrical grinder and concave, also adjustable, so as to be made to suit the size of the pieces of cob or other material as it comes from the breaking device. In the William H. Hope letters pat. ent, (No. 22,807 ,) dated February, 1859, for a new and useful portable rpill, "for cutting, crushing, and grinding corn on the cob, grinding arl kinds of grain into meal and flour, and grinding roots, herbs, bark, etc.," there are found initial crushing cylinders with V-shaped teeth', thick at their base, and running to a sharp edge, with downward IncHnation on one and upward inclination on the other cylinder. Where the mill is not needed as a corn and cob crusher and cutter, these cylinders are so arranged as to be detached. Below these cylinders, devices are arranged for two other crushing or grinding operations, according to the fineness of the reduction desired. In the P. G. McCulla letters patent, (No. 29,612,) dated August 14, 1860, for an improved grinding-mill, there appear two crushing cylinders, provided with teeth placed in a spiral line or position; the teeth on one cylinder being in line with the centers of the spaces between the other. The grinding apparatus employed in connection with said cylinders is adjusted longitudinally so as to grind finer or coarser, as may be desired, and the mill is so constructed to crush only, without grinding, or to grind only, without crushing, or to perform both operations; and it is stated in the specification that if corn and cob, or other substances, require to be crushed before grinding, they are fed into the proper receptacle and between said cylin-
vol. 49. in which they
inJhe sul>stances, o\Ving to the
, be fed lw.itJJ.ollt not liable to the, cas.e)vith the device,whtch Is fOf1l1ed ,choke Of, of lIo aDd stationary'toothed concave. Tlus latter device is quite liable. to and to feed.-diftlcuJtiea which are .' '. avoided by my Invention.' This suggestion of the qfthe double toothed crusbing cyltoothed cylinder and stationary concave Winchell inders over adopted and applied to the Roberts mill, which etubodied the second and third of ,his machines pr improved mill. AnyskilJed mechanic, acquainted the state of the' art relating to crushing and p;rinding mills, ,and ,with and to be remedied in the Rob. erts mill, could and would readily, without the exercise of any inventive faculty or genius, have added the iritergeared initial cylindrical crushers,pfQVided' ,\Vlth teeth or protuberances to draw in the substances to be crushed aqd ground, as shown in the foregoing prior patents. Such carrying forward or application of or devices and their operation, disclosed in earlier patents, does not constitute invention. It is to be noticed thll.t 'the patentee does not seek to patent the means and method adopted for ,l:innging the old devices together. In view of the devices disclosed prior patents referred to, and in the Roberts mill, we that complainant's letters patent, (No. 359,588,) dated are of the March 17, 1887, are lacking in patentable novelty, and are therefore void. While thiS conclusion .renders it unnecessary to consider other questions or assignD;1ents of error, it may be proper to state that, if said patent could be sustained, it would, under well-settled rules, have to be limited and QOIlfined to the particular structure or machine described and covered by the first claim, and that, being thus limited, it is not infringed by the appellee's mill, as the court below correctly held. The decree of the court below,'dismissing the bill, is accordingly affirmed, with costs. .
UNITJl:D STATES tI. THE ITATA.
Court. 8. D. California. March 8, 1892.)
. . ..lJJI'IJl1l .l1Q)FO.nITtTBES-NE11TRALITY LAWS-FURNISJlING ARMS '1'0 FO.1IIGW 111RGENTS-RIIV. ST. 15288.
The steam-ship ltat!l, a vessel belonging to a foreign insurgent party, bnt not being a ves881 of war, came into the territory of the United States, and there received on board a cargo of munitions of war purchased there by an agent of the insurpnts. The was. not for the equipmllnt of the ltata, but was to be transported