but in the condition of the art it was no invention to thus ago gregate the single rows which had been used before. Dunbar V. Myers, 94 U. S. 187; Holland v. Shipley, 127 U. S. 398, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1089; Schlicht & Field Co. v. Sherwood Co., 36 Fed. Rep. 591. The decree of the circuit court is reversed, and cause remanded, with instructions to dismiss the bill.
OVERMAN v. WARWICK CYCLE MANUF'G CO. (Circuit Court,
p. Massachusetts. February
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-'INFRINGEMENT-BICYCLE SADDLES.
:Letters patent No. 331,001, granted November 24,1885, to Albert H. for a picyple, saddle, were for a ll.eXible suspension .saddle, supported by a spriDgat its rear end, to which, llB well llB to the forward support, the saddle is detachably connected, so that "it may be removed and attached at plellBure," in order that "the saddle may be protected from rain and weather, and the bicycle dismantled against riding, with the lellBt inconvenience." Held that, in view of the prior state of the art, the capacity of the saddle to be removed with ease and convenience is tUl es&ential element of the combination; and hence the patent is not by a somewhat similar device, in which the saddle is removli.ble only by the use of a degree of force that does violence to, rather than exercif$es a normal function of, the machine.
InEquity. Suit by Albert H. Overman against the Warwick Cycle Manufacturing Company to restrain the alleged infringement of a Bill dismissed. ' E. S. White, for complainant. JohtJ. L. S. Roberts, for respondent. CARPENTER, District Judge. This is a bill in equity to restrain an alleged infringement of letters patent No. 331,001, granted November 24,1885, to the complajnant, Albert H. Overman, for sfl,ddle for velo<iipedes. The claims alleged to be infringed are as followl!l:
"(1). A flexible suspension saddle, a spring forming the rear support of the saddle, which is detachably hooked to it, and detachable connection between the saddle and its forward support, whereby the saddle may be removed and detached at pleasure, substantially asset forth. (2) A ll.exlble suspension saddle, a U-shaped stay secured to its rear end, a spring forming the rear support of the saddle, and adapted to .have the sald stay detachably connected with it, and detachable connection between the forward end of the saddle and its support, whereby the saddle may be attached to and detached from its supports at pleasure', SUbstantially as set forth. (3) A ll.exlble suspension saddle,' detachable .connection between the same and its rear support, and a bifurcated hook attached to its ,forward end for detachable connection with its forward' support, whereby the saddle may be attached to and detached from its supports at pleasure, SUbstantially llB set forth. (4) A flexible suspension saddle, a spring located under the same, and adapted to be thrown forward, and having the rear end of the saddle detachably connected with it, and detachable connection between the forward end of ·saddle and its support, whereby the saddle may be attached t() and detached from its supports at pleasure, substantially llB set forth."
Without undertaking to foresee all the limitations which are implied in tIw statement that the patented saddle may be attached
OVERMAN V. WARWICK CYCLE MANUF'G CO.
and detached "at pleasure," it is at least clear, as it seems to me, that this phrase implies a saddle so constructed that the attachment and removal may, by a person familiar with the machinery, be easily and quickly removed, and that the process may be often repeated, without injury, other than ordinary wear and tear, either to the removable saddle, or to the remaining parts of the mechanism. So much seems to be implied by the statement that, by the removal of the saddle, it "may be protected from rain and weather, and the bicycle .dismantled against riding, with the least inconvenience." Such protection and dismantling would be useful only when the bicycle is left i1). the road temporarily by the rider; and, as the necessity for 80 leaving the bicycle constantly occurs, it seems clear that there must be a capability for frequent attachment and removal. The respondent claims that the patented device is shown in the patent No. 293,656, granted February 19,1884, to James Alfred Lamplugh, and in the patent No. 294,645, granted :March 4, 1884, to Freeman Lillibridge. It is true that the saddles shown in those patents are· capable of removal and replacement, but the mechanism shown is evidently neither intended nor adapted for the frequent and habitual removal and replacement which is both contemplated and provided for in the Overman saddle. In truth, the Lamplugh saddle and the Lillibridge saddle are adjustable saddles, rather than removable saddles. Having in mind the characteristic feature of the Overman patented saddle, as I have thus stated it, I turn to the device which is alleged to be an infringement. There is no drawing in the record which shows this device, and, in describing it, I therefore refer to the example of the machines made by the respondent, which is produced as an exhibit in this case. The saddle in that machine seems to me clearly within the class represented by the Lillibridge saddle, as distinguished, for the purpose of this case, from the class represented by the Overman saddle. It is, indeed, possible to detach and to reattach the saddle in the machine made and sold by the respondent. But the operation cannot be performed "at pleasure," for two reasons. In detaching the saddle, it is necessary to move it forward so as to disengage the fastening at the forward end of the saddle. Now; when the respondent's saddle is adjusted so that the leather is under a tension sufficient to support the weight of the rider, the whole mechanism is absolutely rigid, and incapable of such a forward motion as is necessary to detach the saddle, with the single exception that there is a small piece of vulcanized India rubber, by whose compression a slight forward movement is made possible. This movement can be accomplished only by great pressure, or by a sudden and heavy blow. The removal of the saddle, therefore, requires the expenditure of a degree of force which, as it seems to me, may be best described by saying thatit does violence to, rather than exercises a normal function of, the mechanism. In the amount or force required, and also in the danger involverl to the machine itself, the respondent's saddle falls far short of the description of the pat<,nt, which calls for a saddle which may be "removed and attached at pleasure." For the reason that the respondent is not proved to infringe, the bill must be dismissed, with costs. v.54F.no.3-32
WILLJAMS v. GOODYFJARMETALLIC RUBBER SHOE 00. , (Circuit Court of Appeals, SeCCtnd Oircuit. February 7, 1893.)
PATEN'TS FOR I:NVENTIONS-NOVELTY-AncTJC OVERSHOES.
Letters patent No. 181,201, granted September lO, 1872, to Isaac F. Wllliams, daimed. "as a new article of manufacture, a cloth and rubber gaiter overshoe, having a double waterproof flap composed of extensions of the vamp and quarter. folded on each side of the vamp or insteP. and provided wIth a buckle and flap tongue, whIch are arranged to draw equally on each sIde of the quarter across the instep." Held, that thia devIce differed from former manufactures solely in making _the water· proof _ flap or gore integral with the vamp or quarter. instead of a separate pIece stitched to them; and. as thls change does not involveinveution. the patent Is invnlld. 49 Fed. Rep. 245. afllrmed.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of-Connecticut. In Equity. Suit by Isaac F. WilliaIIlB against the Goodyear Metallio Rubber Shoe Company to restrain the infringement of a patent. The circuit court dismissed the bill 49 Fed. Rep. 245. Complainant appeals., Affirmed. C. E.Mitchell and Mr. Thurston, for a.ppellant. John K. Beach and Mr. Ingersoll, for appellee. Before WALLACE and LACOMBE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. At the close of the argument of this cause, we announced our conclusion that the patent of 1875 was invalid for want of novelty, but reserved our decision as to the validity of the other -patent, (No. 131,201, dated September 10, 1872, granted to IsaacF. Willialllil,) and as to the other questions presented by the record which would require consideration if the should be sustained. We conclude, as to the patent of 1872, that there is no patentable novelty in the subject of the claim. Consequently, the other questions reserved will not need consideration. The claim of the patent is as follows:
"As a new article of manufacture, a cloth and rubber gaiter overshoe, havInjt a double waterproof flap composed of extensions of the vamp and quarter, folded on each side of the instep, and provided wIth a buckle and flap tongue ,Which are arranged to draw equally on each side of the quarter across the instep. substantially as described."
The patented shoe is an improvement on the well-known "Arctic" overshoe, one of the first examples of which appears in the patent to Thomas C. Wales of 1858. A gaiter overshoe comes well up around and above the ankle. As distinguished from the ordinary, low-cut rubber, the Artic was a cloth and rubber gaiter overshoe constructed very much like the ordinary brogan shoe; the upper, like that of the brogan, being composed of only two portions, called the "vamp" and the "quarter;" the vamp being the forward portion, and the quarter the rear portion, of the shoe. The forward edges of the quarter overlapped the rear edges of the vamp, and at each side of the shoe the quarter had a flap extension, one of which was provided with a buckle, and the other with a tongue, to enable the shoe to be buckled over the instep, and securely