NOVELTY MANUF'G CO. ,tI. WEEKS.
of the demurrer by counsel took a very wide range, but in my view, without adding any others, .sufficient reasons have been assigned for dilmissing the plaintiff's bill, with costs, and it is so ordered.
PHILADELPHIA NOVELTY MANUF'G CO. v. WEEKS. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. .No.95.
PATENTS-LIMITATION OF CLAIM-INFRINGEMENT-STAPLING MACHINES.
April 19, 1894.)
The Heysinger patent, No. 226,402, for a stapling machine for flling and binding papers, must be limited, in view of the prior state ot the art, to the specific structures described and claimed; and its claims covering a clinching base, a staple driver, and both in combination, are not infringed by an apparatus which lacks a part of each device either expressly incorporated in the claims, or described in the speCifications as essential. 52 Fed. 816, affirmed. Altering the slots of the guide clip of a stapling machine so as to permit the staple driver to be inserted both crosswise and lengthwise, or so as to give sufficient room to drive a staple with a. projecting eye, does not involve invention. 52 Fed. 816, affirmed. The Heysinger patent, No. 274,941, for a stapling machine, is void for want of invention. 52 Fed. 816, affirmed.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. This was a suit by the Philadelphia. Novelty Manufacturing Company against Albemus A. Weeks, for alleged infringement of letters patent No. 226,402, dated April 13, 1880, and No. 274,941, dated April 3, 1883, both issued to Isaac W. Heysinger, and relating to what are known as "stapling machines," being small tools for inserting and clinching wire staples near the edges of superimposed sheets of paper. The circuit court dismissed the bill (52 Fed. 816). Complainant appealed. Augustus B. Stoughton, for appellant. Hector I. Fenton, for appellee. Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges. LACOMBE, Circuit Judge. The apparatus described consists of two separate tools. One of these is a staple driver, consisting, essentially, of a flat tube containing a flat blade movable therein, the open end of the tube receiving a staple, crown upward, which is ejected from the tube or staple case by a blow on the end of the blade or plunger, and thus the staple legs are inserted or driven through the mass of papers upon which the mouth of the staple case is superimposed. The other tool is a clinching base, which clips the paper between a slotted guide arm and a base containing a clinching cavity beneath the slot in the guide. The tools are to
be usedtog'efher; stapleldriver'mayobviously bensed with anyclinchittgbase which,wm clineh the ends Of the staplefl. driven upon it, though sllch base (lees not contahi any distinguishing feature of complainant's structure. So, too, the clinching base of the patent may obviously be used with any form of staple driver which will driye the staples upon the clinching caYity, eyen though such staple· drivel' differs widely fi'om that described in 'the patent. coyers clincl:J.ing base; the secop,d coyers The staple driver; 'tlie third coyers both tools in combination. The judge of the circuit court found that defendant did not infringe. It to discUsliI,at)ength the numerous patentsput in evidence, 01' the of Yarying construction which makeup, the state of the art. The :field of inyention was a yery narrow 0Il before Heysinget entered it, and wMther he contributed anything , ()t:, patentable D,oYelty is, extremely doubtful Be that as can be sustained, if at all, only for the speci:fic structures which he described and claimed. As to the second claim, we concur with the circuit judge in the conclusion that defendant's staple driyer more closely resembles an 218,277, August 5, 1879) than it does earlier Heysinger's:' 'The third claim of Heysinger's patent expressly incorporates, as one of the essentials' of its combination, "a tubular external CI,l.Se,:),Qngitudinal)ygrooYed," and, grooyed,as the referen,ce to the drawing shows, throughout its entire length. When referr¢, by the patent office to Brown's patent, the he soughtt6' 'distinguish 'it' from his device by shoWing that "Brown ,does not useanJ: external grooYeat all, his tube being a. closed one." At:d, refe:reMe, Heysinger expressly iJlset:ted in this thIrd claImthest£temeJ;lt aboye quotedas to the 10ngItudmal grooye. Defendant's driver, like]}1'own's, haS no such grooYe, and it is difficult to understand upon what theory appellant now contends that such difference is immaterial. In fact, his brief does not contain any al'gllmerit in support of such contention. The first claim of the 1880 patent is for:
"A paper-filing cUp, B D, having the recessed clinching block, J, and gUide slot, L, or its equivalent, substantially as and for the purpose herein described."
The specifications contain the following references to the clip:
"Fig. 4 is II perspective- view of the spring of tbe clip part; Fig. 5, a like view of the base of the clip; }i'ig. 6, the vibrating clamping and guide arm of the same; Fig. 7, a plan of the base of the clip from above." "The device consists of two parts,-one, the clip or base part, which, as shown in Fig. 1, may be attached,singly or in pairs, tOll baseboard." "The base part consists of It metallic base, 5, so cast or formed as to admit of the. reception of the clamping arm, f'ig,JI, from beneath, the pins, N, N, upon opposite sides of said clamping bar, thus engaging in sockets, P, P, which act as journal boxes; said clamping bar being held up to its place by the fiat spring,' E, 'which is afterwards slipped into its seat; the ,ends being supported by the shoulders, K, K; the center !:leing;free to sink beneath the heel, 0, as the thumb lever, D, is depressed."
The accompanying :figureamake this explanation intelligible:
"The cj,alPplng arm, Fig. 6, consists of a thumb piece, D, clamp, L, and heel, :who]esupported In position by the pins, N, N." "At its forward end, L, thq clamp bar. is slotted · .' · for the reception of the nose of the driver." "lJ:J, front of this slot Is the bifurcation, M (which may be a slot or a of this is to embrace the sides of the pin, F (located at I In the base), and force the papers which may be placed in the clamping jaws down upon the 811,1:11e, so that they may be held from slipping while others are placed upon * · This pin mar also, for special purposes, be dispensed with sometimes. Beneath the L, when In place, lsa raised part of the bilse, J,:,forming a block, upon which the slotted pOrtion, L, of the clamplngnrm restS, and which, together with it, forms the jaws whereby the papers ate held firmly together." "The clamping arms, Fig; 6. are so constructed "that when the thumb lever Is depressed the heel, O. will pass sufficiently far beneath the bearlpg, N, to hold the slotted portioq; L, raised from the base, J, until the end, M; is pressed Upol/" wilen it will close with a snap, and drive the papers down upon the pin, F (Fig. 1). In'usln,:..two of these clips, they are set open, and stand thUliluntilthe paper's are ,'laid in place, when they are successively closed, or the thumb pieCeS, D, D, may be connected by a crosl;l'bar, so that both are actuated simultaneously.'"
The this carefully described arrangement of parts, wher,eby the' be set open or "cock,ed" while the papers being inserted, thus leaving both handfJ,.free for arwere ranging them suitably in place, and whereby, so placed, it might be closed with a snap, was part of the device described, and must be re.a.d into the clainf,,':asbeing the "paper-filing clip, B D." In thisopinioll we concur. '··' The specification contains no suggestion that ,this particular arryngement of parts mlil,y be dispensedw:ith, as it does with regard to, the pin, F; and where a patentee has thus carefully and specifically: pointed out the details of a details, as he show,!:!!,' discharge a stated function, it is not for the court 'to declare themjmmaterial. Defendant haeno such arrangement of parts. TheHJlper arm of intermedihis Clip is held in engagement with the base, or ate spring impinging upwardly upon th(;) piece, and not permitting the thumb piece to be set back br,cocked. It seems probable" that, in consequence, defendant's clip is not as convenient in use as the complainant's, but certainly it does not inSo far as the patent of 1883 is there is nothing to add court. In view of the to the opinion of the judge of the state of the art; there was no invention in altering the slots of the guide as to perplit the staple .driver to be inserted both crosswise aI!d lengthwise, nor so as sufficient room to drive a staple with a proje.cting eye. Thed'ecree of the circuit court is affirmed, with costs.,
, ' ADMIRALTy--REVIEW()F
NAPIER SHIPPING CO.,
CoW't of i
April .18, 1894.)
The findings oJ a, commissioner appointed to ascertain damages in relation to questiona/of .tact depending on conflicting ,evidence should not be disturbed unless error or mistake is clearly apparent.