SHAPLEIGH T. CHESTER ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER 00. et al. (CIrcuit COurt, E. D. Pennsylvania. May 29, 1894.)
f-l'llerl:lllaplelgh patent No. 433,187, for a "safety cut-olf" for electrical apconstrued, and held not infringed.
This. 'vasa bill by M. S. Shapleigh against the Chester Electrio Light & Power Compap,y and others, for 'iDfringement of a patent. Hea,ra on the pleadings and proofs. ' Mark W. Collet, JohnJt. Bennett, and Randall Morgan, for com· plainall.'t. . . & Taylor, for respondents.
i. ,,'," .., ','
DALLAS, Circuit Judge. suit is brought by Marshall S. Shapleigh upon letters:patent No. 433,187, dated July 29, 1890, granted to him for a "safety cut-off." The claims which he alleges the defendants have infringed areas follows:
Safety cnt·o:lts were new with this inventor. Before the pat· ent in suit was applied for, they were well known, and, as in the complainant's device, their principal constituent was a strip of metal more fusible than. the conducting wire employed throughout the system generally. These more fusible pieces are themselves without fusing, the current intended to be capable ot transmitted, and, being interposed as a part of the continuous conductor! they simply form, so long as the normal current is not exceeded, a small section of any circuit to which they are applied; but if and when, from any cause, the ordinary current is materially
JOHNSON V. OLSEN.
increased, they, by fusing, break the circuit, and thus operate to secure immunity from the danger which otherwise would arise from the passage of the abnormal current beyond the point of their insertion. In addition to the fusible strip,llll automatic cut-offs comprise certain other requisite features in common; but it is not necessary to describe them. Each of the claims involved in this case is for a combination of physical parts constituting an integral organism, and, of each of them, terminals provided with lateral supports are an essential element. As to whether the defendants' arrangement embodies this element, the experts broadly differ. Having considered their testi· mony with care, and having also closely examined and compared the respective devices for myself, I have reached the conclusion that that of the defendants is, at least as to the element especially mentioned, materially different in structure from that of the plaintiff; and, furthermore,I am. convinced of the pertinency and soundness of the point made by the learned counsel for the defendants:
"That each terminal of each pair of terminals of the Shapleigh patent is an electrical device embodying lateral supports, and must necessarily so be, whereas but one terminal, at most, of each pair of defendants' terminals, is or need be an electrical terminal embodying lateral supports, and that, therefore, * * * defendants' device does not infringe the specific combination of the claims of complainant's patent."
Upon the ground that infringement of the plaintiff's patent by the defendants has not been shown, the bill is dismissed, with costs.
JOHNSON Y. OLSEN. (Circuit Court, D. Indiana. May 29, 1894.) No. 8,782.
PATENTS-LIMITATION OF CLAIMS-RE.JECTION AND ACQUIESCENCE.
The principle that ar Inventor who acquiesces iI!. the rejection of a claim is estopped from insisting upon such a construction of the claims allowed as would be equivalent to what was rejected, applies when the rejected claim is narrower, as well as when it is broader, than those allowed. Morgan Envelope Co. v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Co., 14 Sup. Ct. 627, followed. The use of lugs to prevent lateral movement having been long known and practiced, their adaptation to an excelsior machine, to prevent lat· eral movement of the sliding plate, involves no invention. Wooden bearings for excelsior machines being old, there is no inven· tion in placing the wood so that the grain will run vertically with the line of motion, instead of at right angles thereto.
The Johnson patent No. 452,553, for improvements tor excelsior machines, is void for want ot novelty and invention.
This was a suit by Jesse B. Johnson against Olaf R. Olsen for infringment of a patent for improvements in excelsior machines.