KNOX'ROCK"'BLASTING CO, v. DRAKE etlll
New No. 4,500;
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-VALIDl'rY-PRIOR USE.
Letters patent No. 291,606, issued January 8, 1884, to John L. L. Knox, for "an improvement in metb.ods of and tools for blasting rocks," was not invalidated by any prior 1lseof the invention therein described.
In Equity;"'Blll by the Kilox Rock-Blasting Company against Drake and Stratton for infringement of a patent. Decree for complainant.
:'he. b1UCllarged, infringement of letters patent No. 291,606, l\rantedoD 8, to John ,L. L.' Knox, for an improvement in llleth0aB Of, and tools for, blastffig rockS. Defendants alleged that the patent was inv8lld by ,reason of prior uSe 'of the invention by others. The claims of the patent,' of which' 1nfl"II1gemetlt was charged, are: ' "(1.) 'l'he withindescribed method of blasting rock, whereby the alignment of the fractures upon the opposite sides of.tb.e is iJ;lsured, which consists, essentially, in formIng Iongltudltlal grooves in the' opposite sides of a cylindrical bore, said grooves having equal sides, and so situated as that a plane bisecting two opposltegrooves will bisect the aDs of the cylindrical as and ,for thepurPosesdellCrlbed,. , ,(Z) The within-described, instrument fol' cuttlng,groovesin cylindrical blasting bores, said instrumeut. having a hexagonalftall,cutting face, two mdes, and of the length and distance apart, equal to the sides,p;( a squ,are inscribed within the circle ,of the cylindrical borJl to be operated upon, .and cutting edges, a, of equal1ength, and so , situated as. that a line joining the points, b, will pass through a point equidistant from the ends of the sides, c, substantially as and for the purposesdescribed.", , '. ,-
W. &,' :Kerr & Arthur C.Bntts,fo1" defendant6.
Curtis, for complainant.
WALLACE, OircuitJudge, (after stating the facts.) It is altogether. unlikely that an invention which is so useful and meritorious as the one which is the subject of the patent in suit, and which, as soon as it was patented, and introduced to the notice of quarrymen, and generally recognized'as an extremely valuable one, would have made no mark, and slunibered in obscurity, if it had been known and used by intelligent quarrymen any considerable length of time before it was patented. The defense of prior use made by the evidence for the defendants is, an unusually weak one, tested by.the,lules which apply to such a defense,and falls far short of the satisfaetory demonstration which is required to overcome the presumption of novelty arising from the grant of letters patent. Americ.l;I.1l Tel. Co. v. People's Tel. Co., 22 Blatchf. ,531, 536, 22 Fed. Rep. 309. A decree is ordered for the complainant. .
ENTERPRISE MANUF'G CO.
WANAMAKER v. ENTERPRISE :MA.NUF'G CO. (Circuit Court of AppealS, Third Circuit. No. 16.
PATENTS FOR INVEN'l'IONS-COMITY BETWEEN CIRCUITS.
January 27, 1893.)
A circuit court should follow the decision of another circuit court upholding a patent, except when new of invalidity is introduced, and in the latter event should confine its investigation to the additional evidence. National Cash Register Co. v. American Cash Register Co., 53 Fed. Rep. 367, followed. The rule of comity between circuit courts in respect to decisions in patent cases does not apply to the circuit court of appeals, and the latter court will examine independently all the questions presented by the record.
SAME-CIRCU'IT CoURT OF APPEALS.
'The first claim of letters patent No. 271,398, issued to John G.Baker. January 30, 1883, for improvements in mechanism for cutting. up plastic or yielding substances, consisting of a machine in which the sole reliance :(01; cutting is upon a knife or other cutting device, operating in conjunction 'With a perforated plate at the points of discharge from the casing, and :in 'Which· there is no lritentional disturbance of the substance to be cut other than to ·force it forward before it I'eaches the plate, is not invalid because of anticipation. 46 Fed.. Rep. 854,. affirmed. Enterprise Manuf'g Co. v. SaI'gent, 28 Fed.. Rep. 185, and 34 Fed.. Rep. 134, approved. This claim is lntringed by a machine which contains all of the elements enumel'ated therein, although thel'e is some unintentional disturbance caused. by the fOl'cinj:t apparatus in the substance to be cut before it reaches the plate. 46 Fed. Rep. 854, affi.l'med.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In Equity. Bill by the Enterprise Manufacturing Company against John Wanamaker, as a seller of a meat-cutting device, for infringement of letters patent No. 271,398, issued January 30, 1883, to John G. Baker, for improvements in mechanism to cut up plastic or yielding substances. The circuit court found that the first claim was valid, and that defendant infringed the same, but that he did not infringe the second claim, and accordingly entered a decree for infringement of the first claim. See 46 Fed. Rep. 854. Defendant appeals. Affirmed. The first claim of the patent reads as follows:
"The combination, in a machine fol' cutting up plastic or yielding substances, of the following lnstl'umentalitles, .namely: FiI'st, a casing fol' containing the SUbstances to' be cut up; secoud; a peI'forated plate at 01' near the end of the caslng; third, a device for fOl'clng the crude mass fOI'Ward in the casing and against the said plate without othel'wise distmbing the integrtty of the said mass; and, fOUI'th, a knife against the iunel' face of the plate, and serving as the 80le means, in with the said plate, of cutting up the mass by seveling therefrom the poI'tions which enter the peI'forations; all substantially as set forth."
In the opinion delivered by the circuit court it is said:
"The fil'st claim is clearly and precisely stated. Its essential elements Rl'e the casing; the peI'foI'ated plate; the fOl'clng device, which drives the mass forward without otherwise disturbing its integl'ity; and the knife operating