ttint the patent,offi6e NCognited him'as an inventor ,And isslle,dhitn a ': . , Stlinding by:,tbemselves, the complainant's c1ahnsaretoo oroad to be sugtainedj"ont.. by reading into them ,lIis specifications, they are limited leather board, ,leath,er, or like material. 1?he i only question raised intbia case, or, indeed, by the present limit our constate :ofit!he's.rt; relates 110 leather board; and cl'usionBtoitlrlli! ,without inquiring leather or other leather board or " ", , ' , , The'dtlereeof ,the :circtiit court, is ,rtwersed, first and sixth claims ofcompIaillant's patent are sustained for use in producing shank stiffeners fronl'leallhef, boord,and:thecase is l1'emanded to the circuit court, wHb instructions1loenter &'decree forthe:complainantfol:&n accounting and for" agninst making, vending, ,or using, for produ<ling shank stiffeners from leather board, any machine or method infringingthe-fustor sixth claims,and for other proceeding$ in conforn;lity with thisopiriioh t the oomplainantto'recover hiscosta:in this and ,the circuit courtt. );}
. . ·
Co. ". PACIFIC !tOLI,ING
Court Of .appeatB. Nintll. ,Circuit. JUly 18, 1892.)
PATBNlJos Mlwniol'l'ioNs-PATliNTABtLITY.-..,INV1IlNTION. ,,' , " issued february 20, ,',l'0m L. Jobnson tor a street railroad rail, oombinmg the prlp,cfpal features lit the tram and T ralls, but ,'''with B ui:fferent dUpositionj of' metal.and'oombination of pa"ts, 60 as to allow the , fish plating,are ,voiitfor want of Patentable invention, as the cnang,eln, fOrDlwas 'merely the result 'of mechanical skill." 47 Fed. Rep. 586, , drIlled;"" ,' ' ,, " ' :', '
,.AppealfronJ.the Circuit Court of the United States ,for the ;District ofCillifornia., , i,' In Equity. These are two suits brought by the Johnson Company (aga.inst the PaCific::RolliDg Mills 06mpany and the Sptter Street RailWl1Y Company" respectively, for infringement' of letters patent No. 272,554, isStledFebruary20, 1883, to Tomb. Johnson railroad rails. The circuitcourtdismiesed the bills I holding was no infringement,and that the patent was void: for want of invention. See 47 Fed. ,Rep. 586, statement of tbMacts will be found.in the, opinion :delivered'bY HA.WLEY"J; COTIlplainant appeals. Affirmed. I)j,GeOrge:HardJiJT!g, ,George J. HCLrding; and Wm,. F. 13oo,tIl, for appellant. MJ LM. KfJ.Uoch, and F. :J. Kwce, for appellee. :'Before McKlilNNAand GILBJl::RT:, Judges, and DEADY t JJ(ldge. ",
H. TIBBE & SONS MAJSUF'G:(:oiv. LAMPARTER.
McKENNA, Circuit Judge. 'Fhe patent in this (Jaseis for a form 'of street rails. The patentee in his specifications admits that rails embodying the general features of his rail were old, andw8 think his spedal form involved no invention. It was but an obvious application ofwhat had preceded., Judgment is therefore affirmed.
(CircU'tt Court E. D. MiBB<lWI"f, E. D. September 5, 181l2.)
PATBNTS FOR INVBNTlONS-INVBNTION-INTERPRETATION-CORNCOB PIPES.
Letters patent No. 205,816, issued July 9, 1878, to Henry'l'ibbe, cla.imlng·" a smoking pipe made of corncob, in which the interstices are filled with. a plalltlc. selfhardening cement," must be interpreted as for corncob pipe in which the exterior interstices of the cob are filled with a self·hardening cement; and thOugh the 11l.ventlon Is' not of a high order, yet, in view, of the generally recognized .merit of the article, the patent is valid. Manufacturing Co. v. Rel.neken, 43 Fed. Rep. 75, followed. The fact. that prior to the application the bowls of corncob pipes had been varnished with shellac, unmixed with other substances, does not constitute all.ticlpa-
Nor is it sufficient to show anticipation that plaster of Paris had been used to fill small cavities or cracks occasionally found in the cob. The patent is not limited to the use of plaster of Paris for the filling. wat-erial, and it is an infrlngemen1; to use either a mixture of finely pulverized corncob mixed with cornstarCh, and moistened in the act of putting on by saturating the cob in alcohol, or a mixture of pulverized corncob and shellac.
In Equity. Bill by the H. Tibbe & Sons Manufacturing Company against Henry Lamparter for infringement of letters patent No. 205,816. issued July 9, 1878, to Henry Tibbe, for an improvement in corncob pipes. Decree for complainant. Paul BakeweU and R. A. BakeweU, for complainant. J. Hugo Grimm, for defendant. THAYER, District Judge. The patent involved in this suit was considered and sustained in the case of Manufacturing Ch. v. Heineken, 43 Fed. Rep. 75. It was there held that the claim of the patent should be interpreted as one for a corncob pipe in which the exterior interstices of the cob are filled with a plastic, self-hardening cement; that the making of such a pipe did not involve invention of a very high order. Nevertheless, as the result had been to convert a poor article into a good one, and to supply something to the trade which was new, and the merits of which were generally recognized, there was enough of invention to sustain the patent. The views thus expressed in the Heineken Case commend themselves to this court, and they are accordingly adopted.