J'EDERAL REPORTEB f
(Circuit Court, N.p.
-ruly 28, 1892.)
PQR !XVBNTIONB-PATBNTAl\ILITY-CORN HUSKER. ,Letters patent No. 290,571, issued :December 18; 1883·. to S. B. Goddard, for an im. :prpvement in the method of reducing corn in the stalk aud separating the kernels, c0lI-sisting of a cutter with feed rollers in front, a beater or a revolving soreen or separator, and a sbaking screen under it, all mounted in one frame, and . so, tb\lot the. parts are drive ll by a single band wheel, are void, since it con,.suts of old and well-known devices, JlOt so combined as to form a single machine.
'InEquity. 'Bill by the Appleton Manufacturing Company against the8taiTManufacturing Company, Delos Dunton, and H. G. Sawyer, to restrain infringemtlnt of a patent. Offield,Towle k.Linthicwm, for complainant. Raymond for defendants.
GRES'ElA:M:, Circuit Judge. This suit is brought for alleged infringementofletters patent No. 290,571, granted to S. B. Goddard, December 18,.18S3,for certain new and useful improvements in the method of reducing corn: in the stalk and separating the kernels. The complainant is the assignee of the patent. The invention is thus described in:' the specifications: "My,invention has relation to a new and useful method of reducing and separating corn from the stalk, hnsk, and cob; and the object is to take the and 80 treat it operation that the grains will be separated froQltllec!>b, and at the same time the stalk, husk, and cob are cut up or comminutlld and ready for use as stock food.-ensilage; or in this fiI1e condition it may be plowed into the "soil as a fertilizer without any further treatm'ept; and to these ends the novelty consists in the method hereinafter described/and particularly set forth intbe claims. In carrying out my invention the result is accomplis.hed by means of the devices shown in the accombutldo not wish to be understood as limiting myself to the as any mechanism which willprodnce the same result may be used. It will thus be seeIi.thaHhe machine may be placed in the field, and the stalks of COrn, being first 9ut down a few inches from the ground, may then be,t'ed in suitaole bunches' to the feed rollers. C, C, and cutters which cut the stalks, ears, and husks into small pieces. and, as above stated, this cutting operation removed the greater portion of the grain from the cob, and the remaining adhering grains are entirely removed by the thrashing action of the cylinders. H, H. and the mass then passes into the revol ving screen. I. where the corn and chaff or dirt pass throngh said screen, and fall into the shaker, L. while the stalks, husktl, and cobs pass out the lower end upon the incline, K, thence to the ground. The grain, corn, and chaff in falling into the shaker, L. is continually agitated. which sifts the chaff throug-h the leaVing the corn clean and clear, to be discharged through the opening, N." The mechanism described for carrying out the process consists of a cutter with feed rollers in front, a beater or thresher, a revolving screen or separator, and a shaking screen under it, all mounted in one frame, and so connected or geared that the parts are driven by a single band wheel. The two claims read:
APPLETON MANUF'G CO. V. STARR HANUF'G CO.
"(1) The method herein described of reducing and separating corn in the stalk at a single 'operation, which consists-First. in cutting up the ears, husks, and stalks; second; in removing the remaining grain from the cobs; and, finally. in separating the clean grain from the stalks, cobs, and husks, as set forth. (2) The method herein described of reducing and separating C01'll in the stalks, which consists in cutting the corn, stalks, cobs, and husks at a :singleoperation. and then removing the remaining grain from the cobs. as set forth. to ' Theonl)"difference between the claims is the omission in the second of the lastBtep in the first. The first step of the process is performed by passing the stalks, with the ears attached, through the cutter haVing a stationary knife, and a revolving cylinder Il,rmed with knives. The chopped-up mass passes from the cutter down an inclined feed board to a thrasher"or beater having revolving toothed cylinders, the speed of the upper One being greater than the lower one. This thrasher mashes or comminutes the sections of the stalks and' cobs, and detaches from the latter any remaining grainlil of corn. This is the second step of the proeess. The cut and thrashed material is delivered from the thresher into the revolving screen, through the meshes of which the shelled corn drops into the shaking screen below, and the threshed mass of stalk, I husks, and cobs escapes at the lower end. This is the third step. If the patent is valid, the complainant is entitled ·to a decree. The difference between the mechanism described for carrying out the process and the defendant's machine is merely structural. It is not true that the patent shows an integral machine. It describes three old and well-knownde\rices,-a cutter, a thrasher, and a; separator,-mounted on a platform in juxtaposition, and so geared as to be operated by a single band wheel, each device operating, however, just as before. They are not combined or incorporated into a single machine with all its parts coacting upon a common principle, or in obedience to a common law. The steps iIHhealleged process are the same, whether performed by a cutter, a thrasher, and a separator mechanically connected, as shown in the patent, 0t: by the same old devices, or their equivalents, having no connection whatever, and widely separated. It is admitted that, in view of the prior art, Goddard was not entitled to a patent for his mechanism, and yet it is claimed that the patent covers the particular mechanism, and all equivalent means for practicing the invention. The complainant's expert and counsel have fallen into the error of assuming that the process is performed by a single machine at a single operation. If the old devices, operated separately, will accomplish the same result, (and it is not denied that they will,) there was no invention in their mere mechanical connection. If Goddard discovered anything, it was that old devices were capable of a new use.. The bill is dismissed for want of equity.
I ! , :.... ,:
qRuft"lfrp·lltino1.8. J\lly .211,
I '. :; · l,
,L 1;'4nN'l'8C'p.; The first and thira claims of letters patent No. 880,346, Issue(l AIml 8, 1888. to WillisJ. Perkins, for improvements in shingle sawing machines, whil!h claims are for, the of a sllingle maQhine with a IE\vel:, ,ftllcr:umed near the 'centra1i1baft, so'that shaft and carriage may bli lifted so as, toper'wit-access to the saws, and 'hlliving a'catch piece to lock t.helever.in position, void for want of novelty., " : ' : . . S. . , Tbe4th; 5th; and 45th claims of said patent, for' the combinatiOn of the Totating carrillge of a shingle ,machilile'with a dog,near the peripheliY, of the carriage, ,so !\rranged that the p.ogsecures and maintains ,a firm hold on.th!l. of 'While it is being sawed, grasping and'releasing the block atprecl!lely the nght time to lusnro the sawing. of, the shingle s,nd the drollping ot.the block 'for the next " .. operation, were not a'!lticipated by,pr!lvioulil patents. ' .
'The 80th, aild 81st. cillims ·of said patentifor a spalting device consisting of two trlioCklil capable ,oroMning or moving while the block of wood is resting on them, so as to drop the block when it is desired to saw no more , shingles out of it; were not anticipated, by previous patentS; forty-tllird claim of said patent, for the combination with a saw carriage of a wooden block furnishing a bearing for the same, and an oU.retaining trough in which the,blockis seated,'s not void for want.of patentsbleinvention,the blocb formerly , in, ulle being ,of iron.
" , '
'-, SAME-<,. P ATE.NTAlJILITy-I:NVENTION.
In Equity"., .:Bill by ,Willis J. Perkins against the Interior Lumber Company, (Jhi;\rles 1\.', Street, Wayne ':B. Chatfield, and Frederick A. Keep for alld acpounting. .. .', ' O!Jield.,TdWlll,& (l'aggard &: Denni,son, for complainant. Winkler, Flanders, Smith, Bottu,'m! & Vilas, for defen.dants. g G.RESJlAM ;:, q.rp\lit. JUfl , a.This. '. .. suit for inrr.ingement of letters patent No. 380j346; granted to the complainant, 3, 1888, for new a.nd useful hnprovements, in shingle.. Sll.wing machint's. The ,relates more particulf\rly tp macpilles of the character which have a rotary carriltgecarryit;lg a.,plurality Qf shingle bolts or blocks, and saws which cut the shingles :from the blopk. "The object of the invention," ,$tl.ys the specification, II il;l to imprQye the working parts of a machine of the character described; and the invention ,consists in improvements in the carriage and devices; also in certaill improvements in. the mechan,isIll for bringing the blocks to position preparatory to sawing; also in it;nPf9ved constructions and combinations for delivering the. spalt and the froUl, the machine; also in many other details of construction and combination o[parts." Claims 1, 3,4, 5, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 43, and 45 issue. ,, The chief element of the first claim is a lever to facilitate the lifting of the carriage wheel or rim, in order to obtain access to the saws, which it is necessary to change at short intervals, and to lift the rim quickly when a spalt or thin piece of timber gets between the saw and the carriage. The claim reads: