: ;:, ,: .',',fJ:
, " . ,.
TRAVER BROWN. (CIrcuIt Court;D. Vermont October 2, 1894.)
, . " :'
patent, No. 431,957, a "stttcb-breaking and raveling atUtChmenl1 machines for sewing 'looped fabrics," which operates by wedging apart, was IlQtanticipated by the prior Congdon invention, which operated by seizing and pulling the threads; and defendl'jllt'!J .DlltChiJ:!.e, which operates in part, at least, by wedging the tbrea4ifapart, is an infringement.
This was a rehearing upon new evidence in a suit by Adelbert Lee Traver. against Eugene H. Bl.'own -for infringement of a patent. The case on the :first hearing is repor1;ed in 6,2 Fed. 933. Odin B. Roberts, for plaintiff. Franklin Scott, for defendant.
WHEELER, District Judge. This case has been opened, and a COpy of the:file wrapper and contents of an application of Oliver J. Congdon, dated December 8, 1887, serial No. 257,297, for a patent "for an improvement in method for removing sUr'plus material from machines fol' uniting knit or looped fabrics," put in evidence, with a stipulation that a machine was made, used, and broken up embody· ing the invention described. It has been further heard and con· sidered upon this and the former evidence. In that machine, as understood, a point projecting from the corner of a square plate moving across the fabric' entered the first stitch of a row, engaged the first 'thread of the stitch, with another plate clamped it, and, moving further, broke it; then, returning across the fabric, and reo leasing the loose end of the thread, another point projecting from al1Othercorner of the square plate entered the next stitch, with the other ])late clamped the next thread, and, moving further, broke that; and so proceeded breaking the threads and removing the pieces till the thread of tllatrow of stitches was aU removed. It appears to have broken' the threads of the stitches by seizing and pulling thein, and is not shown to have done so at all by wedging them apart. Still it is argued to have so limited the field for invention which the plaintiiff's patent might cover as to leave the de· fendant's ·m:achine outside. That machine is said to have pulled the threadS ,apart, wnerethe defendant's cuts them; and the defendant is said to have taken that invention by making the parts cut, rathet 'than to have taken the plaintiff's invention as it is patented in this patent i:['his atgument would· be better founded if the defendant's machine divided the threads wholly without wedging, and the of the patent wholly excluded cutting. But the edges of the wedge of thepa,tent are described as blunt or rounded only, "so as not \0 cut the .fabric immediately on coming in contact with· it," arid are left" so they may help division by abrasion, 16r'clltting even, as wen as by strain on further pressure. The defendant's machine appears to operate by wedging, according, to the patent, even if it does cut, and:cut more than the patent de· scribes. Let there be a decree as before.
BONSACK MACH. CO. V. ELUOT.
BONSACK MACH. CO. v. ELLIOT. (Circuit Court, S. D. New York. April 4. 1894.)
P4TE:NTI3-VAT,IDITY AND INFRINGEMENT-CIGARETTE MACHINES.
The following patents for cigarette machines heH valid and infrlngE1d as to the claims mentioned, namely: The Hook. patent, No. 184,207, as to claim 2; the Emery patent, No. 216,164, as to claims 10, 12, 14, and 15; the Bonsack patent, No. 238,640, as to claims 6 and 7; and tlle Emery patent, No. 308,556, as to claims 1 and 2. I
This was a suit in equity by the Bonsack Machine Company against Henry C. Elliot for infringement of certain patents for -cigarette machines. Samuel A. Duncan and M. B. Philipp, for orator. Edwin H. Brown, for defendant.
WHEELER, District Judge. This suit is brought upon letters patent No. 184,207, dated November 7, 1876, and granted to Albert H. Hook; No. 216,164, dated June 3, 1879, and granted to Charles G. Emery and William H. Emery; No. 238,640, dated March 8, 1881, and granted to James A. Bonsack; and No. 308,556, dated November 25, 1884, and granted to William H. Emery,-allfor cigarette machines, and owned by the orator. The only invention shown of a cigarette machine proper prior to the date of Hook's application, April 3, 1876, is that described in French patent, No. 104,164, antedated July 8, and issued October 5, 1874, to Abadie & Co., for such a machine. Hook's invention is claimed to have been made prior to the issuing of that patent; and upon this point the testimony of witnesses in another case, among others that of C. A. Brown, has been stipulated into this case, upon condition that they should be produced for cross-examination. died without being so produced, and a motion to suppress his testimony for that cause has been made, and is granted. 'l'he other evidence, however, shows clearly the priority of Hook's invention over the issuing of the patent to Abadie & Co., and leaves the field of invention of such a machine, at the time of his invention, open to him. In all of these machines a continuous ribbon of paper for a wrapper, coming from a spool flat, is drawn past a wheel which gums one edge, through a tapering former, which gradually raises the edgel'l" and folds them over one under the other with the gum between around the filler, and through a tube which presses the gummed edges together, causing them to adhere, making a continuous cigarette, to be cut into suitable lengths, for smoking. In Hook's invention the paper ribbon was drawn past the gumming wheel before entering the former, and granulated or otherwise prepared. Tobacco was delivered from a bucket wheel, having an intermittent motion, into the hollow formed by the rising edges of the paper as it passed into the former. In practice, suitable paper was found to be too delicate to bear the strain of being filled and pulled through the machine; and an endless belt of common ribbon was put in, and drawn through with the paper ribbon, to support it. In the patent