tion of an "old organism toan.anl110gous use is ·Blake v.City and ,County of San Franclseo, 113 U. S. 679, .5 Ct. 692; Pennsylvania R. 00. v. Engine Safety Truck Co., 110 U. S. 490, 4 Sup. Ct. 220; Steiner Fire Extinguisher Co. v. City of Adrian, 59 Fed. 132. It is not invention to use an old. combination of devices in a new location ,topertorm the same operations, when no changes or modifications aJ.'e required to adaptit to the new use, or when only such are required as· can be made by the exercise of ordinary mechanical skillo The case of Aron v.Railway Co., 132 U. S.. 84, 10.Sup. Ct. 24, is an . apposite illustration of the rule. The conclusion that the claim is invalid renders it unnecessary to consider the question of infringement, and leads to an affirmance of the decree. The decree of the circuit court is affirmed, with costs.
BUTTE CITY ST; RY.CO. v. PACIFIC CABLE RY. CO. (Circuit Court or Appeals, Ninth Circuit. January 15, 1894.)
PATENTe-INVENTION-COMBINATION-TRACK BRAKE FOR CARS.
The Root patent, No. 304,863, for a track brake ror railway cars, shows a pat0Jltable combination which was not anticipated by the patents for baling Jlresses, issued to Godwin, to Patterson, and to Huntington & Carter. 52 Fed. 863. atllrmed.
Appeal from'the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Montana. In Equity. Bill by the Pacific Qable Railway Company against the Butte City Street-Railway Company for infringement of letters patent No. 304:,863, issued September 9, 1884, to Henry Root, for a track brake for railway carS. The circuit court sustained the pat· ent, and declared infringement. 52 Fed. 863. Defendant appeals. Affirmed. Warren ,Olney, (Goo. H. Knight, on the brief,) for appellant. Wm. F. Booth, for aPPlillee. Before McKENNA and,' GILBERT, Circuit Judges, and ROSS, District Judge, McKENNA, Circuit Judge. This is an for an alleged infringementof a patent for car brakes, issued to one Henry Root, and assigned to appellee. There is but one claim in the patent, and it reads as follows:
"In a car, the "comblnation of the knee levers suspended from the truck frame, ha:ving their angles united .by a .connecting rod, V, the track shoes or said levers. parallel with the track, the suspended ,from the lower. transverse shaft, M, connected" to the. upper end of one pair of the levers, the N, the connecting rod, 0, and the operating lever, substantially as' described." .
is Jxhibitedin the following cut:
GEORGE L. THOM.PSON MANUll"G CO. V. WALBRIDGE.
The appellant contends that it is not a patentable combination. We do not think the contention is supportable. All the parts of the device operate to produce one result, and it is easily distinguishable from that claimed in Reckendorfer v. Faber, 92 U. S. 347, and Adams v. Stamping Co., 141 U. S. 539, 12 Sup. Ct. 66. In the former case the pencil and rubber performed different and independent things. In the latter the hinge attachment to the lantern was a substitute for a detachable fastening, and went no further. The appellant also contends that the patented device was anticipated by a patent to one J. B. Godwin for an improvement for baling cotton, patented June 17, 1873, and a patent for baling presses to Huntington & Carter, issued May 7, 1872, and one to Patterson, issued September 25, 1883. The patent sued on has some similarity in some of its parts to the Godwin patent and the Huntington & Carter patent, but its purpose and application are different; and therefore, under the evidence in the case, and the presumptions allowed to the patent, we cannot say that it was anticipated by them. As to the Patterson patent, the court below found (and the finding appears to be slliltained by the evidence) that the Root device preceded it in invention. The differences between the appellee's device and that of the appellant we do not think are substantial. The judgment and decree of the circuit court are affirmed.
GEORGE I,. THOMPSON MANUF'G CO. v. WALBRIDGE.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York. 1.
March 7, 1894.)
There Is no invention in substituting, in a curling-iron, a drawn rod tor a cast rod performing the same function, or in displacing a round spring by a fiat spring, which is a mere eqUivalent. The ThompP>On patent, No. 460,709, for a curling-iron Is void for want of invention.