apparatus has a horizontal armature, which moves in a vertical direction, while the patented apparatus has a vertical armature, which moves in a horizontal direction, does not prevent infringement. 48 Fed. Rep. 8i5, atBrmed.
BAME-PAljT INFRINGEMENTS-EQUITY JURISDICTION.
The medhanism being otherwise 'llubstanttaUy the lla.me, the fact that defendant's
When a patent has been assigned, together with all claims for past infringe. ments, the fact that a person s'ued by the assignee has not sold any of the infringh;.g articles since the assignment, and testifies tb.at he intenlls to sell no more, is pot sufficient to exclude equitable jurisdiction, when it apPbars that he still has them in stock. I1nd has published a catalogue offering them for sale, and that in his answer he asserts a right to sell them. 48 Fed.' Rep. 375,' affirmed.
Appeal, from the Circuit COl1rt of the United States for the Northern District of California. In Equity. Suit by the California Electrical Works against George L. Henzel for infringement of letters patent No. 230,590, issued July 27 , 1886, to George F. Pinkham, as assignee of Jacob P. Tirrell, for an electric gas-lightiIlg apparatus. Decree for injunction and accounting. See 48 Fed. Rep. 375, where a full statement of the facts will be found in the opinion delivered by HAWLEY, J. Defendant appeals. Affirmed. ],.f. A. Wheaton, 1. M. KaUoch, and F. J. Kierce, for appellant. John H. M1ller and J. P. Langhorne, for appellee. ' Before McKENNA and GILBERT, Circuit Judges.
McKENNA. Circuit JudF;e. The facts in this case justified an injun(}o tion and tbeequitable jurisdiction of the court. The contending devices are for lighting and extinguishing gas by "one impulse," through the agency of electricity. We think the defenflant's device is au infringing imitation of claimant's device, The substant.ial resemblances in structure and Jriction were clearly delineated by the learned judge who tried the case in the circuit cOlJrt. and we concur in bis reasoning llnd conclusions. J udgffient is affirr..1ed.
MARSHALL 'II. PACKARD
(Circuit Court, D. MU88a<'husetts. August 29, 1892.)
PATE:S-TS "OR INVENTIO:s-s-TRIVTAL IMPROVEMENTS-BoOTS AND SIIOES.
Letters patent No. 840,185, Issued April 20. 1886, to tloward T. Marshall for improvements In boots and shoes desig-ned more particularly for pla.vlng lawn tennis, claim substantially (1) a continuous rubber sole witb. projections at lobe heel and tread, all moldea from a single hlank; and (2) the same features, wItb the addition that lobe projections shall be conoidal and arranged in regular order. Held, that the improvement \s of a trivial and unpatentable character.
In Equity. Bill by Howard T. Marshall against Fred Packard and others for infringnment of letters patent No. 340,135, issued April 20, 1886, to complainant. The invention relates to boots and shoes" more
parti<3ularly desigped fOf US(l in playing lawn tennis; although capable of use f()fother purposes." Bill dismissed. ., The claims of the patent are as ·follows:
"(1) A boot or shoe an to the upper of india rubber or any and inner sole, and its. outer or treading surface of its compounds, and provided with independent projections· integral with said rubber, and severally separated from each other, and With the surface of the sole exposed betweell. and around them, as described, and for the purpose specified... "(2) A boot or shoe having an outer sole permanently llecured to the upper and inner sole, and its outer or treading suIiace made of india rubber or any of its compounds, and provilied with independent projections integral with said rubber of conoidiclll1 and in planes parallel with said outer surface of circular or substantially circular form, and severally separated fromeacll other, and With the surface of tile sole exposed be,tween anl1 ;:t.r9und them,substantially as described, and for. the purpose specified."
A:aynadier &- Beach, for com plaitJant. Bentley &- Blodgett, for defendants.
PUTNAM, Circuit Judge. The claims in this patent are not restricted to boots or shoes for any designated uses; nor does'ltny technicallimitation appear in the specifications without which the claims could not be understood, 'although they state that the 'alleged relates more particularly to shoes fOT playing lawn tennis. Stripped of all verbiage, the first claim, as properly construed in connection with' the specifications, is for a continuous rubber sole with projections at' the' heel ann tread, all molded from a single blank. Theaecond claim adds to the 'first that the projections shall be conoidal, and ai-t-l1nged in certain regular order! Whatever there is more than this appears to be mere Bound. The only advantages claimed by the patentee are that these projeCtions, "especially in playing lawn tennis and like games," "act to secure a most firm and close footing of the boot or shoe upon the ground or floor;" that they thus "tend to obviate the liability or danger of the wearer slipping;" and that the peculiar form and arrangement of the projections present a "much neater appearancE! thantheYr if they,. were of a square, triangular, or lozenge shape in similar 'planes," and·also give an "increased serviceability ,and durability." The court listened to the oral arguments, and has read carefully complainant's brief, for the purpose of ascertaining what there is in any of this beyond the most trivial detail, but without result. The point of want of patentability if! taken by the defense, and I think it, niust prevail. There have been of late so many decisions of the supreme·court agaipst patents for trivial, improvel1lents that it is not necessary to any of them,and merely because of its peculiar aptness I cite Burt v. Evory, 133 U. S. 349, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 394. ' Bill dismissed,with costs for defendants.
WATSON II. STEVENS.
WATSON V. STEVENS
(Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit. September 6,1892.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-ANTICIPATION-SlUNK STIFFENER
In letters patent No. 367,484, issued August 2, 1887, to Jeremiah M. Watson, claim 1 is for a machine for compressing shank stiffeners, having "two rotating dia or compressing rollers, the meeting- faces of which are formed to present a recess, having one straight and one curved face or side, to thereby curve trausversely one face of the stiffener, "etc. Claim 6 is for a method of finishing the edges of shank stiffeners, consisting "in cutting out a blank from a sheet of material, leaving the same with beveled edges and obtuse.angled corners, and thereafter passing the same between rolls having dies with rounded edges or margins, in order to round the obtuse angles and beveled portions as cut." Held, that the pate.nt was not an· ticipated by either the "calendering- process machine" of the American Shoe Shank Company or the Blake or Tripp machines. In view of the fact that the patented machine is the only one thus far disco\"ered operating- with efficiency, rapidity, and economy, and of the other circumstances stated in the opinion, it cannot be held,that the patent is void for want of. invention over the prior machines having reciprocating instead of rotating dies, although ordinarily the one is only the mechanical equivalent of the other. 47 Fed. Rep. 11'1, reversed. Loom 00. v. Higgins, 105 U. S. 580, applied.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts. In Equity. Bill by Jeremiah M. Watson against George H. Stevens :md others for infringement of letters patent No. 367,484, issued Au· 2, 1887, to the com plainant for the" methqd" of, and apparatus for, .l:ompressing shank stiffeners. The circuit held that the allegedinven· lion consisted only of the mechanical adaptation of well·known mao chines and processes to a new use, and dismissed the bill. 47 Fed..Rep. 117. Complainant appeals. Reversed. In his specifications the patentee makes the following statements: . "Shank stiffeners. as now commonly made, are cut from leather or leather -board or eqUivalent material, so as to lpave beveled edges; but previousLo ap· plying the same to a boot or shoe it is customary to somewhat shave off or eurve the beveled edges at each side of the stiffener, and also to impart a Ion. gltudinal curve to the stiffener. This invention IHts for its object to devise a of the method of and apparatus for rounding off or curving the beveled ,hank stiffeners, and also to give to the same a longitudinal curve before apil1ying the same toa last or shoe. In out this invention a shank stiffener of suitable shape, cut from a sheet of leather board or other material, so.asto leave its.sides and one end to present beveled edges, the bevel ·of ·the edges occupying such relation to the, 'plain surface of the material as is subto form obtuse.angled corners, and thereafter the blank so jected to the action of cOrlJpressing or die rollers, one of which is cut away or recessed to conform in cross section to the shape it is desired to give to the ;tiffener, the second roll acting to force the stiffener into the said recessed or .cut-away part of the other roller, so as to cause the said beveled edges..and obtuse-anglpd (lorners to be broken down into a round or curve, as will be described. The machine herein shown has two rotating die or compressing rollers, combined with feeding devices for feeding the shank stiffeners to the .die or compressing rollers. The parts are aU preferabl.v made adjustable, and. if desired' for different-sized shank stiffeners, the recessed roller may be .removed, and-another s:ubstituted for it haVing a recess of a differllnt size or