tured' and sold it extensively, without his right to, the monopoly being questioned. The respondent's subsequent act, in taking the Klees patent-in part, at least,' for substantially the same thing.-;;..is a virtulil cOllcessionQf this right." " . Does .the respondent'infringe? This point·.as weH as the one just considered, was earnestly and ably contested. by the respondent's counsel; but here again our judgment is against him. A minute analysis and' cOl1lparison of the two wagons is unnecessary. ' With the models and ,drawings before ua, and all the aid, afforded, by the respondent'sexpert,. we are not able to find any substantial difference· between the bed is raised, front and rear, and shifted backthem. .wards, at the, proper angle, simultaneously, by one operation of devices and cO,D).binations, so similar in principle and effect ast() be substantially undistingllishable. , It is just possible the respondent has in some reo spects hnpruved on the complainant's wagon.lfhe has, however, this his infringement·. A decree must De entered accordingly.
Co.' ii.' BONN et
The fourth' and fifth olaims. of letters patent No.4Ql,871, issued Aprll 23, 18891 to Edwin 0. Abbott, for a device for cutting'figures or letters inbalik cheeks, whIch the combination pf a stationary feed roll, a'rotatable shaft, fixed at one end and movable at the other, !Lnd a levtlr to move the shaft, are void for want of inventiolJi since the only dtft'erence between that snd prior machines is that the lower rollllr, instead of the upper one, is
Bill by the Abbott Machine Company against Robert H. Bonn and otlwrs for and accounting. Charle3 H. Roberta, for complainant. JfcCWllan, OwrTllmina &: Moulton, for defendants·
Judge. This is a bill in equity, charging defend. ant with4heinfringement of patent No. 401,871, granted April 23, 1889, to Edwin O. Abbott, for a "check protector." The patent in question shows a device, for cutting or punching letters, figures, or signs into paper, and its main use is for so cutting or perforating into bank checks or drafts the :figures denoting the amount for which the check or draft is drawn, thereby giving an additional security against an alteration of the check. Infringement is charged· of the fourth and fifth claims of the patent, which cover the feeding mechanism of the machine. These claims are; "(4) In a feeding device fora check protector, tbe combinRtion of a s'tationaty feed I'ollandrotatable sbaft,a xed at one end and movable'at the opposite end. a feee:} mounted on the movable end.o! tbeshait, and a lever
.FJ!lDER.A.L REPORTER, voh 5V
ingwith tbe sbaft for moving it to carry the feed rolls trom contact, substandescribed·. (5) In a fet;ldlng device for a check protector. the comof a stationary ,feed roll, a rotatable shaft, ID9unted at one. end in fixed bearings, a feed roll mounted upon the opposite end of the shaft, a lever ()an:ying ,the latter end(}f the shaft, whereby to move it to carry its feed roll from the stationary feed roll, and a spring for normally holding the feed rolls incontitct, substantially as described'."
,It appears from the proofs that, in order to make a device ofthis kind serve :thepurpose for which it is intended , it is highly desirable to obtaina. correct alignment ahd spacing of the signs and figures cut or perfciratedintothe check or draft. It is also necessary that the line ofsigns or figures ,denoting ,the amount shall be parallel with the written or printed matter of thech'eck, and 'bence the machine must have an endwise. feed, and thepllrts must be so arranged as that the check to be operated on can be 'inserted sideways into the machine at about the point where the figures, are to be cut; or, in other words,directly under the cutting or perforating mechanism. Both the complainant's and the defendants'machines have a platen, or metal plate, the width of which is about that of the length of an ordinary bank check, and the check to be operated on is laid upon this platen, and then pushed sideways, until it is brought properly the cutting mechanisD\. The feed is obtained by two friction rollers, which are so near in contact as to firmly hold the check between them,8()t!:lat, by rotating the lower of these rollers, the check is moved or fed lengthwise, and an intermittent motioIl.Is imparted to, by means of a lever and pawl acting upon the shaft whicll carries them. This lower roller is movable on its shaft ,beneath the platen, and a portion of the platen is cut away, so as td,a,l,lo,wJhe uppersQ,rflitce ()f the roller to extend slightly above the upper surface of the platen,when it is rotated to move the check. It is plain, therefore, that the end of this lower roller which reaches above the surmoo of the platebwill interfere to some extent with the sideways movement of the check when the operator attempts to push it into place under the cutters, and to obviate this difficulty the end of the shaft which carries the lower roller is attached to a lever, which has a slight movement up and down, this movement being controlled by a spring so to hold th61roller in ,operating positionj-that is, in contact, or nearly so, with the .upper roller,-but which admits of depressing the lower roller so that its entire upper surface will be below the upper surface of the platen, whereby the operator can, when he wishes to insertthe' check, depress the lower roller entirely out of the way of the sidewise movement oUhe check, and when the check is in place to be operated upon, the constraint being removed from the spring, the roller resumes its position slightly above the platen, where the check is held firmly between the upper and lower rollers, and moved endwise intermittently to be acted upon by the punches or cutters by the intermittent revQlution of the roHer. The contention ofthe. case is whether it was patentable to make this lowerfeed l'ollermovable,sothat it could be depressed below the platen,
ABBOTT MACHIXE CO. V. BONN.
while the operator was inserting the check, and thEm allowed to return to its place in close contact with the upper roller, so that the check would be held between them; the defendant contending that it was old, at the time of this patent, to hang or adjust a roller friction wheel or pinion so that it could be swung into or out of its working position or engagement. It appears from the proof that the device of two rollers arranged to hold the check between them and feed it forward by the intermittent revolving of one, in a check protector, was old at the date of this patent. Also that it was old to separate the rollers so as to allow the check to be inserted sideways between' them. All this is shown in the 'German machine in evidence, the movable function being given to the upper or idle roller; and all that this patentee has done is to make the lower roller movable instead of the upper one. The question, then, is, was it novel to make a lower roller movable, so that it could be dropped below the Upper surface of the platen by hanging the shaft which carried the roller in a movable bearing? From the testimony in the case, I am satisfied that it was an old and well-known mechanical device to so arrange the bearing of a wheel, pinion, or roller that it could be moved into or out of working engagement, which is what this patentee did with this lower roller, and what was done with the upper roller of the German machine. This is shown in the Peterson machine and the Curtis machine, models of which are in evidence. These were machines for planing or dressing lumber, and a feed wheel or roller was so arranged as to be movable in its bearings, whereby it accommodated itself to the thickness of the board to be operated on. With proof showinga feed for a check protector where the upper roller was movable vertically to admit of the insertion of the check between the rollers, and proof showing actuated rollers in other classes of machinery capable of being moved into or out of working position by mounting the roller shaft or axle on a movable lever or beam, I can see no invention in so changing the old structure of check protectors as to allow the separation of the surfaces of the two feed rollers by hanging the lower or acting roller on a movable bearing, instead of leaving the function of moving in the upper roller. The upper roller, in order to be movable, must be set in some form of movable bearing, and to change this qllalityofmovability from the upper to the lower roller did not involve invention. What Mr. Abbott was seeking to do was to secure a clear, open space between these two feed rollers, into which the check could be pushed by a sideways movement along the surface of the platen: where it could be kept smooth and straight, and he did this by setting his lower roller on a bearing which could be so depressed as to carry the roller below the upper surface of the platen. With planing and molding machines, having pressure rollers so adjusted that one could rise or fall to meet the inequalities of the lumber to be operated upon, so well-known in the art, and a check protector with a movable upper roller, I do not see how any inventive genius is called into action to bring the movable rollers from those machines into this machine. The inventor found this old pressure roller not performing the exact function of his feed roller, but so nearly analogous as
8, icOmhinationwhere it simply performs its old function, although it oJ)emteson>a different different result. The machine of, t'he defendant in this case, whil1lit .i13 a check protector like the ,complainarWs, does its work ,in a different way, and I see no reason whythe patentee of defendanta' machine had not the same right to KO to ,the: ,old artand.select a,movable;bearing for one of his feed rollers as the patentee in this case: had. ,What I mean is that as it was old, as shi:ll'm' by the proof, to make check protectors with a movable upper feed., roHer" is no invention in making such lll:Rchine with a movable lower-feecLroller; and ll,claim for sueb lower fee.droller,in combination withIl:>therpartsofthemechanism, is not for anew8;Udpatentable com· binatiOlD" although it ,maly make ll. more convenient machine. For these reasdus[am of opinion that so much .of the complainant's de"ice as, ,is, cnveretl by claims 4 and D is not novel, and the .bill will be dismissed fOli,want,of equity. '
it seems to me he merely appropriated it to a new use by putting it into
to'2lnggest its adaptability, without essential change, to his purpose; and,
BR,ADLE'V MANUF'a Co.
June 18, 1892;)
1.PiiofintTB 'POB !1NVENTlffl..;.NOVll:LTY-CuVrIVA'l'OR
"/I',tl!!l:.fil'$liQlaim No. lllQ,816, issued May 15, 1877, for an "ment!Jl couplings forcultivatorlil, of a pipe box provided with a projec. '. 'tioD to co-operate with' a spring, weight, 01' the draught, to rock the pipe , QQ:ll: against, of the, refl,r, cpltivators or plowliI, is "oid for want , beell, by letters patent issued June 11, 1872, to Wi!. 'Ham Haslup. Ma:n/ifI1Jdtu.rlng 00. v. Deere, 21 Fed. B.ep. 709, reversed. \!. SDE....Ex':tENT 01' ,CLA:IIll-i-eoYBINATION. " : liIaidclalm,cannot a combination claim for the combination of the ,pipe box With a spnnA' 0.1' weight and a plow beam and axle; since a claim cannot :1:Ie :treated all a combination claim, in the absence, of the word "combination." and of a liltat,expent of tht!,aPllQillc elements of which it is compQsed.
It:lEquity., "Bill, by Mlluufacturing COlnpany against the David BJ,'adley Manufl!:ctuJ,'ing Company for an injunction and account· " ""', ,," , . " ," " ' ing. GeorgeH.Ohiistyand.W, T. Underwood, 'complainant. l1tmd, for defehdant. ' .
for aninjtinctionand accountmg of patent No. 190,816, gra,nted, to W,P.Browti.;, May '15, 1877, for an "impro\7ement in coupfor bult(\1atots. »"'" The in his, spElClficatlons : ,", to 'an irnprov,ed of pUng for fastening the forwtjoi'd of the beam\! ofpJows dl' gangs tof,neax;le of a wheeled culti· vator. The improvernetlt' 'consist6in theparticulal.' construction and arl'angelDent ofa tube or piipe box,. tutnillg lOOSE'ly upon thehmizontal ends of and :C9Jloectecl. tbrpl,Igh an adjustable llti:rrup or sleeve and