ITEAM GAUGlIl .. LABTEBN 00. II. WUJJAu/h
1 '( . '
:; , , '
;;; _,' ) :
Claim 1 of letters patent No. 262,169, Issued August I, 1&l2, to Edward Wilhelm, for anbnproved locomotive' headlil]bt, covers "a provided with an opening behind the burner, wbereby hght Is emitted into tbe headligbt case"for iHumlnatlng Sign,,&1 plates ,or ,I,eolles applied to, said, case, SUbS,tantially Be described." Held that, Jnview of, the, pre..existi'ng the claim must limited to a reflector hI!ovi'I1gallopenlng Dear its apexileparate from the burner bole ot chimney hole Of those devices. ,' . . , Claim 2, which covel"8ll.,combinlltlon of "a reflector,ccmst!'1Jcted with an opening behind the burner, and an aUXiliary reflector, whereby the'ligbt emittedbackwaroly through such opening, Is: directed towa.rdsthe signal, plates or lenses." must be to a CQmbination of the of the flrst claim, with its ilIlPNved openIng and an auxiliary reflector, Bud Is not Infl'lnged by a refle,ctor wit,li any opening behind the ,burner and all auxiliary reflector. §2 Fed. ,Rep. 843, a1IIrmed. :
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern Distiictof New York. In Equity. Bill bytbe Steam Gauge & Lantern Company against Irvin AI Williams for infringement of patent. Decree dillwissing the bill. Complainant appeals. Affirmed. AlbertlI. Walker, for complainant. Edmund Wetmore, for dehmdant. Before LACOMBE and, SHIPMAN, Circuit 1udges. This is an appeal from the decree of the circuit court for the northern difltrict of New York, which dismissed tbe complainant's bill inequity, founded upon the alleged inirillgement of letters patent No. 262,169, dated August 1, 1882, to Edward Wilhelm, for an improved 10comotiveheadliKht. invention related to "an improvement in that cJass ,of headlights which are, provided with signal plates or lenses in the sides of tbe headlight case," and its object was to illuminate such plates; so that the. letters tbereoncould be easily observed at night. Tbe patentee says in his specification that tbese plates had been illuminated in various ways, "either by direct light thrown upon the signal plates throilgh openings in the reflector on botb sides of the lamp, or by the light wbich. is emitted through the chimney opening of andwbich diffuses itselfin the,upper portion of the headlight case, and also by ligbtreflected backwardly from 'the froni end of tbe headlight case." He further says that his invention consisted "in constructing the reflector with an opening at or near its apex bebind the lamp, whereby light is emitted backwardly into tbe headlight case, where it diffuses itself, and may be utilized for illuminating the signal plates or lenses applied to the headlight case; also in providing such case and reflector with an auxiliary reflE'ctor, whicb deflects the light emitted backwardly through the openings in tbe main reflector, and directs such light upon the signals whicb are desired to be illuminated." The two claims of the patent are as follows:
, ".: - ,: 'I ·
"(I) In a beadllght, a reflector provided with an openIng arranged bebln4 the burner, whereby light is emitted backwardly into the headlight case for illuminating signal plates or leoses applied to said case, substantially as set forth. (2) The combination, with a headlight case, provided with signal plates or lenses, of a retiecliOr constr\l:cted with an opening arrsllged behind the burner, and an' auxiliary redector, whereby the light emitted D8Ckwal"dly through such opening is directed towards the signal plates or lenses, substan'. tially as set forth. " The history of the progress in the method of illuminating signal plates oflocomotive headlights, so that the signals can be readily observed at night, is detailed by Judge WALLAQB in his opinion in the circuit court, (42 Fed. Rep. 843,) and therefore need not be fully restated here. The summary of facts which is contained in the portion of tlie specification which has, been quoted is sufficient, excePt, it is important to say, that before 1880 defendant· made or designed a reflector which differe,d in form from. thOse previpusly in use, was deeper, arid so shaped that the piut in rear of the bUrner was elongated, and the hole for the body of the lamp was considerably enlarged rearwardly. This was done to facilitate access to the lamp' for the purpose of trimming and .lighting. A headlight with such a reflector was patented December 28, 1880, and, so far as the openinp;: behind the burner is concerned, the headlight which is alleged to infringe,was described in that patent; The improvement which was described in the first claim of the patent was the improved opening in the reflector at or near its apex, and distinct from the burner hole or chimney hole of any of the pre-existing devices. The aperture of the cla.immustbe limited to the described opening at or near the apex of the reflector, which had alleged advantages of its own;" resulting from :ita location, or the claim canyot be sustained. The defendant's headlight is not an infringement oftha first olaim, and theoomplainant does not-now ask for a favorable decree, so far as that clahn is concerned. The invention of the second claim is the combination· of the headlight case and the reflector of the first claim,with its improved opening :and;·ari. auxiliaryrefiector. It cannot. be construed to include a reflector an opening behind the burner and an auxiliary reflector, for the gist of the improvement lay in the location of the aperture; and an improvement which consists merely in the addition of an auxiliary reflector, which should direct the light from an opening, would not rise to tm pla'ne of patentable invention. The reflector of the .defendant's headlight· does not· have an opening distinct from its burner hole or chimney hole, and· therefore does not mfrlnie either claim. .The decree of the circuit court is affirmed.
MANUF'G CO. tl. BAILEY.
REMINGTON STANDARD TYPEWRITER MANUF'G
(CircuU Oourt, S. D. NtJW York. June 11, 181l2.)
PATEN'I'!\ FOR INVENTIONS-LIMITATION OF
In letters pateqt No. 170,239, issued November 23,1875, to Lucien S. Crandall for an improvement in typewriting machines, the specifications show a Vibrating platen to give more than one printing center, and type bars with two or more types, and having a forward or backward motion so as to use two adjoining types on each printing center. Claim 8 is for "the combination ot the vibrating platen with the swinging compound type bars, provided with types corresponding to each vibration on of the platen, substantially as specified." HeW, that the claim covers the combination of the vibrating platen and the type bars with more than one type, and the word "compound" does not confine the claim to bars having both plural types and a double motion.
In Equity. Bill by the Remington .Standard Typewriter Manufacturing Company against Frank W. Bailey for infringement of letters patent No. 170,239, issued November 23, 1875, to Lucien S. Crandall for an improvement in typewriting machines. Heard on application for a preliminary injunction. Granted as to claim 3 of the patent. . In the specifications the inventor states that"The invention consists mainly in 8 vibrating platen and paper-feed ranged in connection with a series of type bars, which are provided with more than one type, and operated by oscillating finger levers ill such a ner that, according to the backward orfol·ward motion of the same, two ad. joining types are printed on a common center. which centers may be in proportion to the type by definite vibrations of the platen produced by suitable mechanism." The claims are as follows: "t1) A typewriter constructed of a vibratingpJaten, with a series of SWinging compound type bars and oscillating finger levers, substantially in the manner and for the purpose set forth. (2) In a typewriter. a platen or printing cylinder, vibrated in a direction transverse to the lines of printing, by means of m(1Chanism substantially as described, for the purpose of creating additional printing points or centers. (3) The combination of the Vibrating platen with the swinging compound type bars, provided with types corresponding to each vibration on printing point of the platen, substantially as specified. (4) The combination of the swinging type bar with the oscillating finger leVer, and with mechanism, substantially as described, for imparting a double action to the type bar, so that the same may be thrown a fixed distance in forward or backward direction, and compel two adjoining types to strike the same printing point of the platen, substantially as described." H. D. DcmneUy, for complainant. CampbeU, Hotchkiss &; Reiley, (Maynadier &; Beach, of counsel,) for de· fendant.
LACOMBE, Circuit Judge. This is an application for preliminary injunction against infringement of patent No. 170,239, (to Lucien S. Crandall, November 23.1875,) for improvement in typewriting machines. The third claim of the patent is as follows: "(3) The combination of the vibrating platen with the sWinging compound type bars, provided with types conesponding to each vibration on printing point of tbe platen, substantially as specified."