!",. " (", ,
," ," .
operative machine. Reeves v. Bridge Co., 5 Fish. PM. Cas. 456; Lubricator Manuf'gCo. v.Renchard, 9 Fed. Rep. 293, (opinion by Mr. Jqstice Drill Co. v. Simpson, 29 Fed. Rep: 288; Ellithorpe ",.'Robertson, 4 Blatcnf. 307; DraperY. Mills Corp.; 13 O. G. 276; Odell v. Stout, 22 Fed. Rep. 159. Further objection to reversing the decree is made on behalf of appellee,on the ground that Christie was not the true inventor of the machine for he obtained the patent. It is said that Christian Keck, Who was in his employ, was the real inventor. We do not see how this is a subject which can be here investigated. The question here (section 4915, Rev. St.) is only whether Seybold was the first and true inventor. It is certain that some one reduced the Invention to practice before Seybold did, and, if that is so, Seybold Is not the first and true inventor, unless he was using reasonable diligence to adapt and perfect his conception; and we haye found that he was not doing this.. If Christie's patent is vOId because he was not the first and true inventor, and Keck was, that would not entitle Seybold to a patent. The commissioner of patents did not consider the question, and we think he acted rightly in this r e s p e c t . . . On the whole case we find, therefore, that Seybold is not the true and first inventor. The decree of the cotirt, below is reversed, with instru..ctions to dil;,miss the.bill at the costs of the complainant.
v. HUNT et at .(Circuit Court of. AppealS, ]'irst Circuit.
No. 40. 1.
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-CONSTRUCTION OF CI,AIM-COMBINATION.
April 13, 1893.)
Letters patent 321,833, issued July 7, 1885, to Cornelius E. Masten, for a firecracker, covers, in cHUm 1, the match, B, the fuse, C, in combination with the solid plug, D, and body, A, substantially as set forth. The specification makes no reference to the prior state of the art, and merely states that the invention produces "a mpre desirable article" "than is now in ordinary use," without particularizing the points constituting the improvement.· Held, that the presumption of novelty applies to the combination as aWhole, arid; in tbe absence of evidence as to the prior state of the art the court has no pOwer to declare that the match, B, or its equivalent was not essential·. and to hold that a like cracker, with a continuous fuse, is an infringement. 51 Fed. :Rep. 216, affirmed. The 'use of the conjunction "and" between the words "match, B,"· and "fuse, C," does· not show that the match and· fUSfl constitute but one eleInent, of .which a continuous fuse would betlw equivalent. 51 Fed. :Rep. 216, affirmed.
A,ppeal from the Cir(juit Court of the United States for the District of Massachl!setts.: . .:1 IIi Equity. This "Vas' a suit by Cornelius E; Masten ward S. Hunt and others for the infringement of letters patent :No. 321,833, issued July 7, 1885, forA The circuit ('ourt dismissed· the bill; its' opinion, which is adopted by the circuit
MORSSV. DOMESTIC SEWIXG-MACH·.
court of appeals, together with a fu,ll statement of the facts oU;he reportedin5iFed. Rep. 216. The complainant ljlppeaJs. Affirmed. . . Charles C. Morgan and John S. Richardson, for appellant. James E. Maynadier, for appellees. Before COLT, Circuit Judge, and NELSON and WEBB, District Judges. NELSON, District Judge. We agree with the learned cirC1Jit judge who decided this case in the court below, for the reasons given in his opinion, which we adopt as the opinion of this court, that the, appellant has shown no infringement of his patent by the appellees. A common safety fuse inserted through a plug, such as is used Ily the appellees in the manufacture of cannon crackers,-a device as: old as the art of blasting,-cannot possibly be an equivalent for the combined fuse and match described in the first claim of the patent. Decree affirmed.
MORSSv. SEWING-MACH. CO. No. 12.
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMENTS-EQUIVALENTs-Drmss FOR)[S.
(CirCUit Court of Appeals, First Circuit. April 13, 1893.)
Claim 1 of letters patent No. 233,239, issued October 12, 1880, to John Hall, for an improvement in dress forms, whereby they may be made more readily adjustable to the varying styles and sizes of dresses, was for "the combination with ribs, c, of the springs, h, each pair of springs having their upper ends secured to a single rib, substantially as and for the purpose specified." The specifications show the ribs to Ibe divided into sections, with the two springs attached to the upper section, and spreading downward to the adjoining ribs, and expressly disclaim as new the stretchers, blocks, rests, and band, and their operation to eX]tand and contract the dress form at pleasure. Held, that the patent was limited to the specific device, and that the equivalent thereof was not contained in the patent of November 29, 1887, to William H. Knap.p, having double ribs composed of a single V-shaped wire, extending in an unbroken piece their entire length, and rigidly attached to a segmented waistband. 48 Fed. Rep. 113, affirmed.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts. In Equity. This was a suit by Charles A. !lIorss against the Domestic Sewing-Machine Company for the infringement of letters patent No. 233,239, granted to John Hall, October 12, 1880, for a new and useful improvement in dress forms. The circuit court dismissed the bill, its opinion, which is adopted by the circuit court of appeals, being reported in 48 Fed. Rep. 113. Complainant appealed. Affirmed. Payson:E. Tucker and Charles F.Perkins, for appellant. John Dane, Jr., for appellee. Before PUTNAM, Circuit Judge, and NELSON and WEBB, District Judges.