.n) . 1/.
J " , ,
S.' B... IlE.-Jlln'KUIIGBMJ:itfT.c
, Claim 8 b'tletters pil.tent No. 2::l0,45!l; i'ssued October 1, 'l879. to WIard & Bullock, for ali ,iilllProvemepll of··11> "reversible double mold· boa/.'d in, with a J;ElyersU>le moldboard plow, "dl!:!clo!:!e!:!,patenm, , bllHll1veltY,1 alId is 'vaUlf. ',.' " " ,,'
, ',A.double laud!:!lde Wid the the furrow , 'side, lSan'6s!:!enthdele'mllilt of the cIll,1lli, ai:l(1 a jointer lacking thi!:! feature,does"DOt' inf!'Uige, although, the wovd!:! "doUble ,moldboard" were iD!:!erted, by the l\Ia.tellto:Oice, without !:!uflicient rea!:!on.
SyrucuseOhilled 'Plow Oompany against of a dismissed. . , ',(1eo. W. lIey,' for ., ' . '.. ,B: Belden, for dlilferidant.
',.WALLME, Infringement ifialleged of the third claim of letters Pl1tent to Wiard, & Bullock October 7, j'879, for an .improvetnElIlt insule-hill plows. ,The claim reads as folThe 'do,uble moldboard joilder, in combination constructe4. apd arranged substl,l.n:tially as and for A ble jointer is of. no ,exceptl?n,a. .; Such plo\Vsoontai'n a reversible moldboard. T4e, invention Qf :tbe .qlaim resides in combining the, double of the plow, and capable of being ;reversedwhe:qthe main moldboard is shifted, with a reversible main moldboard. 'l'he, function ()La, jointer is to turn lL small furrow in advance qf the furrow made by main moldboard., A reversible jointer is . reversible main moldboard of the plow, ,capable ofa<ijustment, so as to turn a furrow to the: right or left .hand, at. th,e will of the operat,or. ''fhe, (;lxpert c6ncedes. that there is not found in any prior patent exhibiting tpeprior state of the l;lrt a plow having a J9inter combined with! a reversible mold.board. ,I have no reasontoclo,ubtthat such a com,bination involved pa.tentable; lJ,Qvelty, ana aO,ew and' useful result; nor thl'l£ the ljlpitation inserted a double moldboard is made element, wall, .an 90e,8nd. required by the patent office without sufficient rElaspns. . ,": ),1 that fuEl defendants have not infringed the claim in controversy, and that their plows do not have the double moldboard jointer of the claim. The file wrapper of the application for the patent shows that the patentees' original claim was as follows: "The reversible jointer, in combination with the reversible moldboard plow, constructed and arranged substantially as and for the purposes specified." The applicants were required by the patent office to
amend the claim by adding t:1efore the word"'jointer" the words,udou· ble moldboard."Accordingly they amended the claim so asto read as it now stands. Referring totha specification, the only descriptiotlof the moldhoard jointer is as follows:
"This moldboard is so shaped as to present a land in proper line on the one side, and ampldboard on tbe other, when turned in one direction, and therevetse when turned the otber way."
UnlesstbedouQlemoldbo,aid il:1,COmpOlledOftwo parts, of which one forms a. land. and. the other a. furrow side, it is not the jointer of the patent. In llone of the alleged, infringing plows is there SUGh a board: '., ., , It may be true; ,and probably is, that a land side does not any imp0l'tap.t function in the'lpoldboard of jointer. land side in the main moldboard of the plow bears against the land side row, an,d thus rl:ll:1ists the ,strain causE,ld. by the preSSure oftpeearth on the furrow, side; but :lateral pressure exerted on .the moldbo,arc;l. of the jointer is inBignificant, because the resistance of the land side of main m041board prevents lateral displacement, and holds the beam in place. Nevertheless" thepll.tentees have seen fit, by their description, of the jointer moldboard as so shaped as to present a land side in proper line on one ,side and a moldboard on the other, to specify it as one ble of performing the functions incident to that form of moldboard. Having made this feature essential by their specification, it cannot be eliminated. The double moldboard jointer of the claim must be regarded as a moldboard having this feature. The bill must be dismissed.
(Circut.; Court, S. D. New Yor1c.
Mathias Hohner is a well-known maker of harmonicas in Wurtemberg, most of which are sold under his name in this country. He makes no particular style, but his workmanship is good. Ernest Leiterd made harmonicas in and put upon them his own name, partly in monogram. with the word "nacn" ana the words "Improved Hohner" in larger and plainer letters, and sold them in this country through an agent. Held, that Hohner's right to the use of his own name was infringed, and he was entitled to an injunction and accounting.
In Equity. Bill by Mathias Hohner against William R. Gratz for infringement of a trade name. On final hearing. A motion for leave to file a supplemental answer setting up a foreign judgment was heretofore denied. See 50 Fed. Rep. 369. Decree for complainant. Louis O. Raegener, for orator. Benno, Loewy, for defendant.