distinct from that to whieh the same question was directed in the de· cision of the case to which we have referred The correct inquiry, from our point of view, is not whether this appellee uses, in its mechanism of mediate connection, the same which are used by the appellants, or equivalents thereof, but whether the mediate connection employed by the appellee is not itself an equivalent of the mediate connection of the Campbell combination. It may be can· ceded that there are marked differences in the details by which this connection is made, and its purpose accomplished, in the one ap· paratus and in the other; but the manifestly well-founded expert testimony is that "a mediate connection," not the details thereof, is included among the elements of the Campbell machine. This element, as well as all others of the patented invention, are found in the appellee's apparatus. We attach no importance to the fact that in the appellants' machine the drawer is released upon downward pressure of the key, while i,n that of the appellee it is released as the finger leaves the keytowhicl;:t. the pressure is applied. In both, the drawer is opened by what is snbstl1ntially one and the same act,the operation of a key of the series. Though some of the correspond· ing parts the machinery are not the same, and, separately .comddered, could not be regarded as identical or conflicting, yet, having the same purpose in the cOIubination, and effecting that purpose in substantially the same manner, they are the equivalents of each other in that regard. Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U. S. 780. We are of opinion that the combination here claimed is infringed by the apparatus used by the appellees. The decree of the circuit court is reversed, with costs, and it is ordered that this cause be, and the same is hereby, remanded to the said circuit court for further proceedings to be there taken in pur· suance of this determination and judgment of this court, and in COIl"formity with this opinion.
et at December 21l, 1892.)
(Circuit Court, N. D. New YorK. No. 5,88l.
PATENTS FOR INVENTION-LIMITATION OF CLAIM-PRIOR ART-CANDLE-SIUPING MACHINE.
Letters patent No. 330,200, issued November 10, 1885, to Anton F. Baumer, co\"c:r an apparatus for candles, comprising a tubular holder with a die at one end and a plunger at the other, whereby thp. Jin:ll shape and finish 3re given both to the ends of the candles and to the exterior circumference of its body. Held, that if the patent is sustainable at all, in view of the fact that similar candle;; had been before made, and that machines for molding and llressing plastic material by means of a die and plunger were well known, it is entitleli ouly to a narrow construction, and tlle patentee is not entitled to invoke the doctrine of equivalents. The patent is not infringed by a machIne having a single die for molding the foot of a candle, the tip being meanwhile held firmly by a cushion which prevents the canIDe from slipping, but does not impart any form or finish to the tip, and in which the holder embraces only a part of the candle, and is not adapted to smooth or finish the exterior thereof.
<1n>1J!lquity.·Suit byA;.nton F. Baumer ;L()ui$, Will and infringement 'O£:a patent. Bill dismissed for for defendants.
CO:X:m:'District J·udge. ,this is an equity action for the infringemeAt patent No. 330,200, granted to Anton F. Baumer, 1885, for an improved apparatus for and finish. . . .
"'l'her1!UIi110se of the inventi0ll is to apply ,the final and finish to the exterior,.amd ij)orcpul'ticularly to the eIJ.ds, of candles molded or otherwise formed,l1J;lproXtnmtely to shape." eOlXlprising· a tubular holder for (,m bracing the body of the caJldle, end (jfalU(lliolder, and i at the opposite end of .wWireby the candle Is compressed endwise be.tween said die and I whiCh lmpart thefiItal shape andlfinish to the ends of the candle, and! IU: tha·; 'same' time expand the candle circumferentially in the tubular s4ltaightens,smopthsand finillhes the e:lterior of the body of the pq.. nIs. consists in ,certain auxiliary devices connected 9
_"""'"t ." .'
"(it): An. apparatus for shS.ping candles, comprising a tuhulal' holder for embi'a'Cing';th.e)bQlJy of tile can91e,a die llt()ne.lill.d of said holder,ancl a plunger in tIm end of set forth anll shown. (2) Tht} combtniltionof the tuBular candle holder, dIes at opposite ends of said holdpr. aUlI . a plunger carrying on.e of said dIes; as and for the purpose specified." "(4) The oombinatioa of th:O tubular candle holder, a conical die at one end of said holder and oor111gnted lu.tigitudinaUY tp: taper and corrugate the foot of the can<Ue,aconC/liv:ed l,n: t1;le opposite end of the holder to taper the top of the candle, anll a plunger,carrying OJ;le of said dies, substantiall)' as set forth 'ahd shoWlt.'; ,. ..
·l]hedBimfitmvolved areas follows:
The defenses are lack of novelty and. inventio:ri: and noninfringement. In 1865 John Lyon .Field, an Englishman, made and patented a candle with, an enlarged corrugated. foot made in the shape of an inverted frustum of a cone so that it would fit the socket of any candlestick. The Field candle wasrn:ade in a mold. The patentee makesa,ca.n,dle precisely simUar in appearance, but by a different method. He takes an ordiriarymolded candle, and, in order to make the enlarged .toot, forces,' the lower end into a die shaped exactly like the low$l' end of the mold in which the Field candle must h<we been made.. trhe product is. the same in both irurtances. The patentee's candle is no better than Field's candle. The method of making the former would seem to be niore cumbersome and expensive. If there be ariyadvantage in putting the candle through two manipulations where one would suftj.ce, it is n,eitller pOU1ted out in the patent nor was it explained at the argument. The thing produced being old, and dies' for making articles similar in character being well known, the parent would seem to be dangerously near the doctrine old and dies for cutting dough of the Bretzel Case. :Bretzels not invention to make a were old; it was, therefore, held that it
LALANCE & GROSJEAN llANUF'G CO. V. HABERM,A,NN MANUF'G CO.
die that would cut a bretzet Butler v. Steckel, 137 lJ. S. 21, 20, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 25. But in any view the invention is a narrow one. The prior art was full of machines for molding 'l1nd pressing plastic material by means of a die and plunger. Several of these machines are shown in the record. It is entirely clear that the patent cannot have a broad construction and that the doctrine of equivalents cannot he invoked to bring within the claims structures which do not contain the features expressly made a. part of the claims. Derby v. Tbompson, 13 Sup. Ct Rep. 181. Confining the claims t-o the apparatus deseribed, the defendants do not infringe. They do not use a holder which imparts a final finish to the candle, for the reason that it does not completely inclose the candle. They do not employ two dies at. opposite ends of the holder. They have a single die at one end for molding the coneshaped foot, 'after the wax has been softened to make it plastic. While this operation is being carried on, the tip of. the candle is held firmly in a cushion or bearing to prevent the candle from slippi.ng when subjected to the action of the plunger at tile other end. This bearing or cushion does not impart any form or finish to the tip of the candle as does the complainant's· die; its office is solely to hold the candle in place. The fil'St claim contains the following elements: First, a tubular holder for embracing the body of the candle, second, a die at one end of the holder, and, third, a pltinger at the opposite end. A machine which infringes this claim must be constructed with the· die and the plunger at opposite ends of tM holder. The cushioned support used by the de$endants is not a die. Therefore there is no die opposite the plunger end of their holder. Indeed, it is doubtful if they employ the first element of the claim. Their holder embraces a part of the candle only; it is. not adapted., to straighten, smooth or finish the exterior of the candle, or permit it to expand circumferentially. The upper part of the candle is not touched by the holder in I:I>ny way. Of course, if the first claim is not infringed neither of. the others is, as both of them describe a holder with two dies, one at each end. The defendants, as has peen seen, use an apparatus having but one die. The bill is dismissed.
& GROSJEAN MANUF'G CO.
v. HABER1\'IANN :M.ANUF'G CO.
December 22, 1892.)
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
PATENTS FOR iNVENTIONS-SUFFICIENCY OF SPECIFICATIONS-DESCRIPTION.
The fil"8t claim of letters patent No. 270,094, issued June 5, 1883, to Emile Kegreisz, covers an improved proc of giving a variegated appearss ance to the ornamentation of enameled ironware, by recoating it with a colored liquid after it has been enameled in the usual way. In the specification the process is described as follower: "After the ordinary process of enameling has been completed, I prepare a thin glaze eomposed of coloring matter that can be made to remain mechanically suspended a short time in water, and apply it to the article. * * * The glaze should be made su1ficiently thin to avoid being pasty, so that it will freely spread or run over the surface. * * * The glaze will be found to separate and coagulate in irregular spots," etc. Held, that the patent is not invalid for insufficiency of description, in that it does not state that the enamel must