BUNDY MANUF'G CO. V. COLUMBIAN TIME-RECORDER CO.
by Mr. Pillsbury, notwithstanding the legal and technical change in ownership wrought by the incorporation. Can such conduct be and falsehood, preventing fittingly characterized as relief inequity? But, however that may be, it sufficiently appears that prior to this suit the appellee adopted the custom of stamping upon its packages of flour, in connection with and immediately preceding the monogram of the former firm of Charles A. Pillsbury & Co., the words, "Pillsbury-Washburn Flour Mills, Ltd., Successors to," therebyanJ;louncing the technical legal ownership of the mills and business and the origin of the product. We are therefore of opinion that in restraining the unlawful acts of the appellants we should do no violence to the principle that ''he who comes into a court of equity seeking equity must come with pure hands." We see no occasion for the imputation of fraud to the appellee. Affirmed.
BUNDY MANUF'G CO. v. COLUMBIAN TIME-RECORDER CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. December 3, 1894.) No. 26. The Bundy patent, No. 482,293, for a workmen's time recorder, in which the impression platen is operated by a check in the hands of the workmen, is not entitled to a .broad construction as a primary invention, and is not infringed by the English machine, in Which the platen is operated by clockwork previously wound up.
Appeal from the Oircuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. This was a suit by the BUIidy Manufacturing Company against the Oolumbian Oompany for infringment of a pat The nt. circuit court dismissed the bill for want of infringement (59 Fed. 293), and complainant appeals. Oornelius W. Smith, for appellant. Alan D. Kenyon, for appellee. Before WALLAOE, LACOMBE, and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges. SHIPMAN, Circuit Judge. The bill in equity in this case was founded upon an alleged infringement of the first, second, fifth, thirteenth, and fourteenth claims of letters patent No. 482,293, applied for Marcb 3, 1892, dated September 6, 1892, and issued to William L. Bundy, for a workman's time recorder. Tbe defendant denied infringement, but, if the macbines which were made by the respective parties sbould be considered to he substantially alike, relied upon priority of invention.. It manufactures under letters patent for a workman's time recorder, No. '161,822, applied for May 22, 1891, datRd Octo'ber 27, 1891,and issued to John O. English. A large part of tbe testimony related' to the date .of the Bundy invention, the complainant endeavoring toshowtbat Bundy was the earlier inventor, and to ex.cuse any apparent lack ofqiligence in the practice of hit'! invention
ltSpt-esentation to the patent office. Without discussing this question, the circuit court for the Southern district (jfNew York disupon the ground of noninfringement. 59 Fed. 293. As we concur with the circuit court in both its results and its reasons therefor, as Judge Wheeler's opinion states with clearness and succinctness the vital differences in the mechanism of the two machines, and leaves very little to be added by way of further explanation, quote his opinion in full:
"ThIs'S1l1tls brought for alleged InfrIngement of letters patent No. 482,293, dated. September 3, 1892, and granted to the orator as 8Jilsignee of William L. Bundy fora workman's time 'recorder. In these machines, time wheels, with dates to hours and minutes in type on their faces, are moved by clockwork, so as to present these dates synchronously with the clock to ,an impression platen moving on a rock shaft'set in motion by a check on which the workman's number Is piaced In type sent down a chute In which it is stopped near the time wheeis; and this number and the time are there printed from the type on a strip of paper passed along under a ribbon by a blow from the platen, and the check is then released and dropped into a receptacle beiow. Thus th,e "tIme of inserting the .check for beginning or quitting work by the workman represented by the number on the check is correctly recorderI and kept on the strip of paper. MachInes for recording the time of workmen by printing from' types on the faces of time wheels on the turning of cranks or keys existed before thIs InventIon.. By the method of the orator's patent the check, when Inserted by force of the workmen, moves a lever which is connected by a rod to a crank arm on the rock shaft, and moves the platen away from the faces of the time wheels lI.gaInst the force of a spring, to where It is held untll the check In falling strikes another lever extending Into the chute and releases the platen. which by force of the spring and its own weight Is brought back and prints the number of the check and the time on the strip of paper. Five claims are alleged to be infringed, which are for: "'(1) In a workman's time recorder, a check, in combination with a check chute, a lever projecting into It, a rod connected to said lever, a rock shaft, and a crank arm thereon to which said rod is connected. .. '(2) ]n a workman's time recorder, a check, in combInation with a check chute, a lever projecting into It, a rod connected to said lever, a rock shaft, a crank arm thereon, to which said rod is connected, and an impression platen mounted upon an arm secured to saId rock shaft.' "'(5) The combination, with the impression platen, of a rock shaft, to which it is connected, and means to rotate said crank shaft, actuated by the Insertion of a check into the check chute.' "'(13) In a workman's time recorder, a clock, time wheels synchronous therElwith, a rock shaft, and an impression platen connected thereto and acttloted thereby, In combination with a. check chute, a rod connected to said rock shaft, a lever connected to said rod and projecting into the check chute, and a check operatively engaging with said lever to rotate said shaft when hlserted into Said chute. '!'(l4) In a workman's time recorder, a,:check, a check chute, and a sliding stop holding the check upon the printing line, in combination with an impressi()u'platen thrown away from the cbute by the insertion of the check into chute, and an arm upon the platen engaging said stop to release said at the same moment that the impression blow is given by the platen.' 'qn the defendant's machine the impression platen is moved on a rock lever toli!trike its bloW by clockWork froml the time works, wound up and carried by a spriJ:!.g, and set in lllotlOJ;l at. the right moment for printing the riumbm and tlJl)e. by the weight of We check talling upon a lever extending Into the chute, and connected with this clockwork. The first question made for t1J.e defendant is whether this iB· an ·infringement of any of these claims. to the previous description of the These Claims d«nQt in themselves. parts of t1J.e maclJ,ine mentioned In thelll,. but they must be taken as in effect referring to the Whole of the instrument ln whIch they belong. Westinghouse v. Air-Brake Co., 2 Ban. & A. 55; Fell; Cas. No. 17,450; Bruce v. Marder, 10
BUNDY MANUF'G CO. t1. COLUMBIAN TIME-RECORDER CO.
Fed. 750. In this view the several elements ot those claims are to be considered as parts of mechanism for bringing the impression pIaten. Into operation upon the types on the check and time wheels at the proper time. If the invention had been of a time-recorder as a new thing containing these parts the claims might cover all modes of so bringing the impression platen into operation, but as it was not they can cover only substantially these means. Railway Co. v. Sayles, 97 U. S. 556. In the machine of the patent the impression platen is operated by the check in the hand of the workman; in the defendant's macl1ine it is operated by the clockwork previously wound up. This substantial difference seems to run through the whole, and to take the defendant's machine out of the scope of all of these claims. In this view the several serious questions as to the validity of these claims need not be examined into."
The complainant relied upon the alleged fact that its patent was for a primary invention and was therefore entitled to a broad range of equivalents. Miller v. Manufacturing Co., 151 U. S. 186, 14 Sup. Ct 310. Upon the character of the invention the question of infringement really depended. The complainant's position was that prior to the alleged date of the Bundy invention no time recorder existed in which, after the im:ertion of the check, all the work was performed automatically. Other machines existed in which, after the check was placed in the chute, printing was effected through lever mechanism actuated by a key or a cam or a crank which was operated by the workman. This is true, but the result which is claimed by the complainant does not necessarily follow. The "check machine" was not one which accomplished an important result, or a necessary or a greatly desired improvement upon its predecessors, and was not, therefore, a broad invention. Bundy's ''key machine," patented November 20, 1888, by letters patent No. 393,205, was and is, as subsequently improved, a very successful machine. It contains the fundamental idea of his subsequent invention, and, while the check machine, which seeks to require nothing of the workman but to drop the check into the chute, is an improvement, it is an invention which covers only that area of equivalents over which patents for improvements ordinarily extend. Turning now to the question of infringement, in the Bundy rna· chine the weight and the momentum of the check, operating through a series of levers, moved the impression platen. In the machine of the English patent the falling check rocked a lever, whose depression operated a trip which released the platen. The platen was then impelled to strike the blow by a spring which had previously been wound up. .The circuit court correctly defined the substantial difference to be that "in the machine of the patent the impression platen is operated by the check in the hand of the workman; in the defendant's machine, it is operated by the clockwork previously wound up." The complainant's counsel urges that the circuit court confined itself to the machine as shown in the English patent, and did not advert to the English machine as made and shown in the model, which he of the patent in two respects: claims differs from the (1) In the patent the wound-up spring "impels the platen to strike an impression blow, being released for that purpose by a trip which is operated by a falling check; while in the macbine a trip meehan-
the wolInd-up spring sWl.·ng 91'.:...'. . . ·.' it rea. ciy to ,its and (2) lD ordertQprQVJ,de means to strike the blow, a coiled sprmg is used,whicbd.s in construction and .operation the same as the spring in the Buudy If the alleged difference e:Xists; iUs not materlalu,'Pon'thttquestiQh of infringement. In tb.e patent the previolllillystored' up in the clockwork impels 'the platen to strike a blow, while in'themachine as made the clockwork throwsthe platen back }1\'to< position to ,strike its blOW., The substantial difference found ':b:V the'Circuit court still exists, which is that in the Bundy force of the .check alone moves the platen, whereas in the Englisbmnchine the previollslystbred up force in' the clockwork brings into position to strike the blow. The decree of the is affirmed, with costs..
l,'PA.TENil'$--:INFJtiNGEN:ENT-:-"OHANGE OF ;FUNCTION BY NATURAL BREAKAGE. It'Ufno'ground :of"!i for bifringement that tbe glass chimneys iln: 'stovebeoome broken, and that such stove, 'if used withpll,t,j$e cOlllplMnanrs patent, where. the evidence that 1wfendant ..er sold a .stove a chimney, and broken. and there is no evidence that''tJ1e stove lI"aseverused withou,t a chImney. ."
; "r r
CARRlNGTON v. SILVER & CO. (Clrol'llt.Oourt,. Si b. New York; December 6, 1894.)
'Cal'l'illgl:on's patents,.Nos. 419,827,420,255, for improvements in gas· principle of which Is, the free radiation of heat at all ppiqts, .and particularly at the. lower portion. of the ·. and the aVOidance upward drl),fts and chimney-like effect above the burner, ito be infringed by a stove: markedly similar in appearance, but ,ill. faQt,jJeslgned,by the use of a glass chimney, to create an upward draft.
Is the owner of two letters patent,granted to James H. Carrington;· for hnprovements In gas stoves. The first of these, No. 419,827,wnl;i'grlihted January 21, 1890. The application was filed November 1, 1889. The ,patentee says: "My invention consists of a stove the body of which Iscpmposed of perforated metal, designed fOJ; burning to the best f;)rnonilluminatiug g;as. By. my invention I obviate all.centrallzation or drafts or currents of air or 'heat, and the heat is given treeoutwAt'd radiation at all points, so that thllre' are no jets of air drawn In, at the base and no chimney-like effect above the burner, which resultsfrQrnl f)O.J;lfining the ·lj.elited. air, as w.ith. common s.tQves of this class. The topo.t1he I3to-r.e is by preference closed or imI1erforate to deflect the He says t'urther that .the body of the stove is of per'may be from one foot to three or more feeib The. perforations are by pr.eference small and close together. , . .prqIH",one hunqred, to thrE¥l' !:lundred perforations to the square inch TlJ.e toP of. the stove. is ·without apertures. and servef'fOiintercept the Jrtsing currents of heated,a,lr and causes them dow'nward'atidoutward.'!Tbe 'burnet may be of any approved type lIu'-<1.1$ located a,t the base ofilie; stove. The bottom of the stove pillte,: no draft Into tlle stove consists .lilf.1t. except through this bottom plate. For nigh stoves a centrally located per-
in equity. This was'a suit by Anna A.. Carrington' &: Co., a corporation, for infringement of letters patent.