SMITH fl. MACBETH.
devise and construct the former, with the latter before one's eyes, -which, in contemplation of law, we must assume Mr. Allen had, -was the work of an adaptive mechanic, and not the province ot an inventor. All the improvements claimed were, as compared with Shippen's devi,ce, within the category of degree. They produced no new result; the parts performed no new function,-it was simply; a transposing or readjusting of Shippen's elements to changed conditions, to a,ccomplish the same result they had before. It is true the radiation of the distributing rods in Shippen's device did not take place from the particular pull wheel situated above the framework where the actuating mechanism was placed, but this was because local conditions did not 80 require. Had they done 80; had the wells been on all sides of the water power, instead of on one,It is apparent the first pull wheel (or a revolving disk, which the patent says is its equivalent) could have been made the radiating center; and if the storage house Interfered with the lateral movement, or the subsequent shifting, of the rods, It required no invention to dispense with a superstructure which performed no function whatever in the pumping. That left off, we have remaining a supporting frame for the power shaft and the pump-driving shaft, forming a house frame, and the end of the latter shaft extending above the frame, in combination with pump-actuating rods. For the reasons above stated, we are of opinion the compla.tnant's bill should be dismissed, and his patent held for naught. Such being the case, it Is needless for us to discuss the alleged infringement. Let a decree be prepared.
(Circuit Court, E. D. New York. January 1, 1894.)
PATENTS-INFRINGEMENT-MAGNETO-ELECTRIO MACHINES FOR FIRING FUSES.
The SmIth patent, No. 201,296, for Improvement in magneto-electric machInes for firIng fuses In blastIng, is narrowed by its .claIms, as allowed, to the combInation of an operating device with the swItch of the condensing circuit In 1ts path, and adapted to be opened by dIrect impingement of It, and Is not therefore infrInged by defendant's devIce, in which the switch Is not in the path of the operating devIce, and is not opened by the direct impIngement of any of the parts constituting the operating device.
This was a suit in equity by H. Julius Smith against James Macbeth for infringement of a patent granted to complainant. Leonard E. Curtis, for orator. James A. Hudson and Arthur S. Browne, for defendant. WHEELER, District Judge. This bill is borought for alleged Infringement of letters patent No. 201,296, dated March 12, 1878, and granted to the orator, for improvement in magneto-electrio machines for firing fuses in blasting. The electricity is developed and accumulated in a condensing circuit by the rotation of arma· tures moved by a rack bar forced downward by hand and working a pinion with accelerated velocity; the condensing circuit is
br()keb.,byothe end of the:rackbar striking a switch· as itre81ches the liDiit of its' when the electricity is accumulated to, its greatel!lt:illtensity; and the current is sent by the working circuit to thefuliles. In the original application the orator described and claimed the combination with the operating device of a rotary 'armatuteofa dynamo-magneto electric machine of a circuit breaker arranged. in the condensing .circuit of' the machine so as to be positively operated by said rotating .device, whereby the condensing circUit is broken, and :the developed electric current switched therefroln to a working circuit, by which the current is conducted to the point where it is to be applied for firing. On rejection, this part of the application was changed to a description and claim of:
, "(1) Thecomblbation Wit}'! the operating device of the rotary armature .ot .a dynamo-magneto electric machine of a bridge Ol' switch arranged in the· condenliling . circuit of said machine, and In the path of said operating device, and: adapted to he opened by direct impingement of said device thereupon, substantially as described, and for the purposes set forth."
Upon the .application so changed, the patent was ..granted; and this claim is now alleged to be infringed. In the defendant's mac,hine the armatures are rotated by pulling upward with in· "creasing velocity a bar attached to the end of a lever pivoted on a shaft, and moving a toothed segment meshed ina pinion. The i switch in the condensi.Il.g circuit is opened by a stud on a cam pivoted on the same shaft with the lever, which lifts a latch and lets a spring move it as the operating bar reaches its upward limit, and the electricity is accumulated to its greatest intensity, and the current is thereby sent by the working circuit to the fuses. The orator was apparently the first to apply the power by motion in a direct line to revolving the armatures, whereby the velocity can be more regularly accelerated than when applied by a crank, as before; and also the first to break the condensing circuit by the direct action of the operating device. Therefore, this claim ,9f the patent is probablY valid for what it covers. If the general claim first made had been allowed, and could have been sustained, it would perhaps have covered the defendant's machine; but the 'limitations and restrictions inserted in it to obtain it remain with it. Roemer v. Peddie,. 132 U. S. 313, 10 Sup. at. 98. They narrow it to the combination of an operating device with the switch of the condensing circuit in its path, and adapted to be opened by direct impingement of it. The switch in the defendant's con· densing circUit is not hi the path of the operating device, which consists of the bar lever and toothed segment extending from the handle to the shaft on which the lever is pivoted, but is situated beyond the shaft, and outside the path of movement of these parts; . and it is not opened by the direct impingement of any of these ,parts constituting the operating device, but indirectly by the shaft moving the cam which carries the stud that lifts the latch. This does not, as now understood, appear to be an infringement. Bill dismissed.
ROGERS TYPOGRAPH CO. tl. MERGENTHALER LINOTYPE CO.
ROGERS TYPOGRAPH CO. v. MERGENTHALER LINOTYPE CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit No. 11.
December 3, 1894.)
Letters patent Nos. 313,224 and 317,828, issued, respectively, March 3, 1885, and May 12, 1885, to Ottmar Mergenthaler for "improvement in machines for producing printing bars," consisting, in part, of a combination of a series of independent matrices representing characters, holders or "magazines for said matrices, finger keys representing the respective characters, intermediate mechanism to assemble the matl'ices, and a casting machine to co-opel'ate with the assembled matl'ices, are for inventions of unusual merit, and, in view of the prior art, entitled to liberal construction, and al'e infl'lnged by the Rogers machine, which, while in some l'espects an improvement, operates on the same principle, contains the same general features, and produces substantially the same results. The fact that the machine, when fil'st pl'oduced, failed to justify perfectly, which fault was l'emedied, and pel'fect justification produced by improved machines subsequently made, is no reason for denying reliet to the ol'iginal patentee.
SAME-FAULT IN ORIGINAL MACHINE.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey. This was a bill by the Mergenthaler Linotype Company against the Rogers Typograph Company for an injunction. There was a decree for complainant in the court below, from which decree respondent appeals. George H. Lothrop and M. B. Philipp, for appellant. Frederic H. Betts, for appellee. Before ACHESON and DALLAS, Circuit Judges, and BUTLER, District Judge. ACHESON, Circuit Judge. This suit was upon two letters pat· ent of the United States granted to Ottmar Mergenthaler,-No. 313,224, dated March 3, 1885, and No. 317,828, dated May 12, 188:5. The inventions relate to a machine for producing printing bars. Each patent describes and shows mechanisms whereby matrices, in any desired association of characters, are assembled in a line, such line of matrices brought into proper relation with a mold of the size required for a line of type of predetermined length, and a cast made in the mold, forming a printing bar bearing in relief the characters impressed in the matrices. The patented mechanisms produce a series of lines of type, which can be arranged into columns, and thus hand composition by individual type is dispensed with. The specification of the first patent contains the following statement:
"This invention is dil'ected to the rapid and economical production of letter-pl'ess printing, and relates to a machine to be driven by power, and