MAHON V. M'GUIRE MANUF'G CO.
681
discover any importance in this difference, so far as respects the question involved. He thinks the jacket performs functions in thp. pneumatic system which it does not in the electric. If it does, this is not the result of any difference in the nature or character of the jacket, or the manner of its use, or of any merit in the complainant's work. If there is a difference in the functions performed it results alone from the difference in the nature of the conductors employed in the two systems. We are nrlt satisfied, however, that the alleged difference exists. It seems to us that in hoth systems, the jacket performs the same service.' The wires as well as the tubes, are liable to kink, tangle, stretch and break. There may be a difference in degree as respects the liability to stretch and break; but this is unimportant. Wire has, of course, a greater tensile 'strength than rubber, but all experience that it will stretch and break, even by its own weight, when not edy supported. It is quite as liable to kink and tangle as rubber. It is indisputably clear, however, that the main purpose and effect of the jacket in the one system and the other are the same; and however much one may dilate UpOl1 the characterizing differences of the two syS" terns, the fact remains that all the patentee did was to apply the old conductor coverings, long used upon the electric elevator signal, to the pneumatic signal, for the same general purpose. It follows that the bill must be dismissed.
MAHON
et al.
'Ii. McGUIRE MANUF'G
Co. et at.
(Cf,reuU Court, N. D. Illinois. May 2,1892.) PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-BENDING BLOCK-PATENTABLE INVENTION·.
Letters patent No. 337,006, issued March 2,1885. to David C. Mabon and others, for a "bending- block," consisting of a block or former adapted to the bending or shaping of the loop in guide rods for grain-car doors, are void for want of patentable invention.
In Equity. Bill by David C. Mahon and others against the McGuire Manufacturing Company and William A. McGuire. F. W. Parker, for complainants. West &: Bond, for defendants. BLODGETT, J. This is a bill for an injunction and accounting by reason of the alleged infringement of patent No. 337,006, granted to complainants March 2,1885, for a "bending block." The patent shows a block or former adapted to the bending; or shaping of a portion of the guide rods called for by the pa,tent granted William McGuire and Frank Jaeger, June 3, 1884, and December 1,1885, for a "grain-car The guide rod called for by the McGuire and Jaeger patents is made of round rodiroD, about three quarters of an inch to an inch in<diameter',
FEDERAL
yol.
51.
3ud;has!apeculiarly shaped )OOPIl;t.t :the ·upperend, and the work of loop on an ,ordiJ,lary. anvil added quite considerably,to t413 cost of eoveret;l by this patent is a forUliI;lg block, o,ver. ,wlp.icb a part of the iron rod is bent complete the loop. The peculiarity of, this forUlingblock,is aJ-sh,aped groove, which tlwiI'on rod as it. has shaped on th l3 an'jiI, and the end or projection of {he former to give it tqerequiredshapEl' and the end is then bent sideways arid flattened byhlow,s from ,the hammer to adapt it to be fastened to the car with The patentpontains four claims, all of w,hich defendants are charged "(I) A bending block or fqrn:er adapted to receive or holq,(at the curvature of t1:le iron) an iron"e". e/l', havinK a cU,rvaturt', e',th.e said block also baYing a. part formed approximately like tRe curvature, c,of the said iron, ill cl;lmbillation with a pin orlu'g arranged for contact with the said iron in the angle at the junction of We: part, e"', with the flattened portion, cf , substantiallyas and JOl·the purpose specified. (2) A bending block or former haVing thereon one or more parts, gj g. formed substantially as shown and one or marl! It, h, arranged, substantially as shown, w,ith relation ,to part or g, g, in combination with one or mqre pins or lugs, F, F, forth. (3) A bending block 01' former thereon one 'or more beveled or tapering projecting parts, u, u, and one or more beveled ol"tapering pl'()jectlng parts,h,h, in combination witb one or more pins or lugs, F, F. the said parts, h andg,being tapering or smallest at their onter ends or faces, all arranged substantially as shown anddescribed, with relation to each other, for the purposes spt forth. (4) A bending block or fanner having thel'eon one or more diagonal or inclined blocks. E, E, and also having upon one or both ends projecting parts, g, g and h, h, both arrapged suhshmti/l,Uy,as shown and described, combination with one or more phis, F, F, for the purposes set forth. .. '. The defenses are: (1) Want of patentable novelty; (2) noninfringement. In addition to the common knowledge, 'Which might"be enough, the proof shows that long before this patent, it was old to giveshllpes to rods or bars of or metal by bending them about a pattern orformer; Mr. Barnes, who was called as an expert witnes8 for the defendants. saying: "ray · ',J. 'up,lilerstanll is Jne!Hlt what 'is 'technically called a · tormer,' a former being a block, fl'atne" or mass of w09d pr,metal which bas a contour. groove, or surface which either ba,s the same, or approximately the same, general shape, outline, or alignmetit as the work'to be pt'oduced. Such formers, and formers in general. have been commonly used sil1ce'the earliest history of metallurgy. Some of the most complicated formers were used sevepdhu ndred yearsilinoe, in forming ornamental iron work ,. a class of work lWllichisat tbis day more cqmmonly in ,drop, presses and dies . . the use f<lf ,formers iq bending pipes ,of cappel' or iron filling them with rosjn,or sand fortQe connectIons reqUired in ships ''6ndon alsoillNre' formation ofhand'rMlings a,nd ornamental work. a contoul'Ol' shape, either hI 'gl'ooves or sections'of grooves; 'forrnedby stops either loose or fixed on, nle formers, the alignment of wbiich COl"respolldsin a general sort of, way; tQ thelllignment of the work to be. pl'9duced.· ; In cl\l'l"iage. work, in ordertp obtain duplication
MAHON:V. M'GUIRE MAKUF'G
do.
683
andS;fmmetry, it is absolutely necessary to use stIch formers--:-sometimes eral of them-to prod lice one piece. It isnotuncommon,however, to produce mOi'lt complicated forms from common rolled iron by means of It former, having first prepared the metal, if necessary, to more readily. assume some particular complex shape. Such formers are not necessarily arranged to bend metals only in ohe plane, as conical spirals and other forms lying in several planes are often produced in this way. This. is often done in preparing pipes for distilleries, and in the manufacture of conical springs." This testimony is corroborated by that of several practical mechanics in the record, and it may be also said to he a matter of common knowledge that formers have been used from time immemorial to bend variQus farm implements, like scyth snaths, plow handles, etc. It will be borne in mind that these patentees did not invent the guide rod nor the loop upon it; the only device of their patent being a former, about the cud or hom of which the loop of the rod is bent. It Beems to me nothing can be more obvious than that only mechanical skill is called into action in making a core or former around which an iron rod is to be bent to bring it to some desired shape. The shoemaker bends his leather around the last to adapt it to the shape of the wearer's foot. The farmer bends a tough, flexible piece of wood around a former shaped like the Deck of his ox, to make an oxbow for his yoke. The thills and other parts of vehicles are shaped by bending over formers. In 1 Appl. Mech. Dict.,C66th Ed. p. 701, tit. "Bending,") is a description of the mode of forming the links for ship cables bybendiDg them round an oval former. The simple problem is to make a form which shall give the required shape to the rod of iron or wood to be bent around it. It may, in som6 case!;', require a superior order of mechanical skill to make a former which shall hold one portion of the iron rod in place while the other portion is bent round the forming core, as in the case of these guide rods. One part of this loop, it appears, must be formed by the smith with the done, the pAtentee cut a groove hammer upon 11 plain ari\'il. This in an iron block of such 'shape as to receive the rod, with the part already made with the hammer, and the portion placed in this groove is held very firmly, while the end to be operated upon is bent round the nose or end of the block which projects beyond this groove. Clearly, only the skill to cut this groove and shape the nose or end of the block to give the required shape to the loop was called for to make this former. These patentees are intelligent men, well skilled in their art and trade as blacksmiths. They knew, from experience, that it was old to bend iron over a former like a mandrel or the horn of an anvil to give it the desired shape, and the problem presented them was to make a former which would give a final shape to the loop of this guide rod, and thereby cheapen its construction. They knew all they had to do to accomplish this was to make a forming block which would hold the partly formed loop in the shape it had received from the hammer, while the rest of the loop was completed by bending the rest of the rod round the former, and their efforts in that direction resulted in the bending block of the patent. Other persons w0rkillg at the same problem made devices which the testimony shows would do the work, that is, give the
684
FEDERA.L REPORTER,
vol. 51.
req,ub:'edsqape to the end of the rod, but they were not aa good worki Il8P1()QP.,al!.that made by these patentees. :THsnrged in behalfofcomplainants that the faotthatthefle other persons faHred,· or did not succeed as well as these patentees in prod ucinga formedor the purpose, shows that the device involved invention. But it me the failure resulted from want of skill. In Butler v. Steckd;' 137U. S. 21, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 25, it was held that it does not require invention to produce a former or die when the former is old; the court saying: "It is, true, I doubt not, that it required considerable mechanical skill to makei('d.e,which would cut a bretzel from dough so as to imitate a handmadebretzel,'bec8use the hand-made bretzel is somewhat clumsily shaped, as Llje parts 'are bent, twisted, and laid upon each other; and it was undoubtedly requiriijg some study, effort, and experiment to make the shape of to tbeextemal fOrmation of the bretzel. This, however, ,me not to involve invention, ,but mere mechanical ski,li, A cutter to expel,'iment some,'-that is, cut several diell,-but that .', I .. " ',: .
aq<}
I;QcorrWHveEngine&tJetyTruck Qq., 110,U.. S. 494, 4 Sup, Ct. Rep. 220; 1!t,orsheim v. Schilling, 137 U',8. 64, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 20,-it is
P-.$, 626, 9 f;lup. Ct. 0.
in Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v,.
in Petm v.
Co.,
. It. t,o" .invo.lve iDve.n,tiO.n to, so cha.nge old devices 11 .. '
as toad.,apt them or analogous ,opera,tions; and in Bttrt v. EV(Y/'Y, 133 U. S. Ot. Rep. 394, it is said: is it invention to coma new .article without, producing any new mode of '
to the o,f patentability of this device, r do not deem it to consider the question of infringement; altpough.Ima,yflaythat the pins,orlugs,F, F, are elements of all the cJaims 0,1 patent, and ,as defendants do, not use ,these pins, 'charge of.iQfringement is sustained, as it is necessary to I .doubt if tRe, ,working ofthe compkinants' machine that the pins shall be remova,ble;' and hence the ra,ised portion of defendants' qlock around which the same office in the the part'to q6.J:rll ttened is bent does that l!;l,performed by the pins, F, F, in the COD1plainantll'qla,c.\l,ine; aI:\d certainly, if a patent can be at all for such ,a de,vice as this, it must be for the specific co:m;truction. I, do 1\ot; intelldtodispose of the, case on the question of nonin;b:iIt., 'Ill! that question is, distinctly made in the pleadings qutjust, that, I intimate my viewsupon it,'Thehill .w.ust be dismissed for WaJ;lt of:equity. I.",: . .) !" ' . .'
,
I
as
.;1": i.,
I,'
(,
NORTHROF'S n'BS NORTHROP'S EX'BS (Oflrcuit Court II.
II.
RASNER.
685
RASNER et til.
of Appeals, Third Oircuit. August 16,1892.)
1.
PATENTS J!'OR INVENTIONS-LIMITATION OJ!' CLAIMS-PRIOR ART-METALLIC CEILINGS-
a
Letters patent No. 330,916, issued November 24, 1885, to Albert Northrop, for an improvement in metallic ceilings, if valid at all, must, in view of the prior state of the art, be limited to a ceiling made of panels, in which the chief characteristics are (1) the formation on two or more sides of the panels by means of molded edges which fit into each other, of a channel along which leakage water may flow and be discharged at orifices made by cutting away the corners of the panels, the oriflces being concealed by rosettes so constructed as to aid in discharging the water; and (2) the widening of alternate sides of each panel into flanged edges, which lie loosely upon each oth,er,IlO as to allow expansion and contraction by heat and cold. 48 Fed. Rep. 449, aftlrmed. '
SAMII-INl!'RINGEMENT.
'):'he patent is therefore not infringed by c,eilings made of metallic panels generallyhaving partially raised surfaces surrounded by moldings gradually flattening out into flat edges, which are nailed rigidly to the furring strips, such moldings forming no continuous,phannel for the discharge of water, and each panel having rosettes at the corners, which serve the purpose of ornaments only. 48 Fe4. Rep. 449, aftlrmed. ' ,
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania. In Equity. Suit by the executors of Albert Northrop against Rasner .& Dinger for infringement of patent. The circuit court sustained the patent, but held that it must be strictly construed, and that .defendants did not infringe it, and therefore dismissed the bill. 48 Fed. .Rep. 449. Complainants appeal. Affirmed. W. Bakewell & Son8, for appellants. D. F. Patterson, for appellees. Before ACHESON and DALLAS, Circuit Judges, and GREEN, District Judge. GREEN, District Judge. The bill of complaint in this cause alleges infringement of letters patent No. 330,916, which were granted to the complainants ' testator, Albert Northrop, November 24, 1885, for an improvement in metallic ceilings. The object of the invention, as declared by the inventor, was to provide a sectional metallic ceiling of such construction that it should be of small initial cost in its manufacture; that it might be readily applied; that it would present a neat and .finIshed appearance; and, further, that it would provide for the escape of any water that might flow upon the upper surface of the ceiling by reason ·of a leaky roof or defective water pipe in the ceiling, or other cause. With these objects in view, the inventor declared that his invention con·sisted in certain features of construction and relative arrangement and combination of parts, as. he set forth and described in the specifications ,of the letters patent. The ceiling which it was intended to protect by these letters patent is <:omposed of a series of panels, joined together. Each panel is construc.ted with a molding on each one of its sides, which is SOccul,'ved as to form:lt channel. As the moldings are counterparts of -each other. the molding .on the edge oJ one panel will fit within the