919 and is hot-a;, l'(}ller:in the' dg 'oUno iniportanie;,that ,being amereimatter of by weightin the former, and by' a.! spring inf the n<>diffetence. On ,the)qllestion of. it issll fficient,to say that none of the> cbcim,sof' the .Bachelder patent are, anticipated by .Thimdnier,';orHowe;or Motley & Johnson, or Q)nant; The claims of for combinations<:,f mechanism. Those combinllitions havffimecessarily, certain functions and modes of operation/whiehaa-e seUorthin tnt specification. .But the' claims,(a.re· not to functions or results, The' combinationflin ,any.infringing machine niust j of course, to infringe, have the same fUhctions a.ndmodes of operation which the Baehelder combinati<>ns' have; but, in addition, the means must be substaritiallythe same. There must be. a decree for the plaintiffs as to all the elaims.

KNAPP

v.J OUBERT;

1

and

"

otqers·.

I ,

·

,I

(Circuit Court, N. D,Ne'IJJ;York. April,1881.)· ,.

1.

CoMBINATION PATENT-MECHANICAL BUCKBOARD WAGONS. . '

IN , . .

.

The sUbject of the complainant's patent was 'an improvement In a sustaining sllringQr spring!! were. ployed to supplement the functions of the at its center of pressure, and yielding with it at its ends, in respOnse to'the pressure at the center. Held, that, as the complainant was the 'first to employ the l!lutaining spring for the pecuuliarfunction'Which it performe4, he was to be protect,ed not only in the partif:ulllr devices which lle employed for that purpose,blit against all other devices which were the meehanieal'equivalents ofhis.":"[En. '

N. DavenpOT.l". for compilliinant. , EsekOowen, .for defendants. , WALLACE, D. J. I am. of opinion tliatthe.defendants' buckboard' wagon, manufactured under;their ,patent of Janufj,ry, 27,1880,,is an infringement. of tbe complainant's patent of l?eptElmber' 29, 1874:. The imbject Of "the compla.inant's

220 patent is an improvement;inbuekboaird. wagons, whereby a B.Ustainirig spring or springs ,are employed to supplement the functions aLtha brickbDafl'd,; bracing .it at its center of ure,' and' yielding with it, "a.t Atsepds, in response to the pressure'at the center. Shortly :prior, to the complainant's invention,> George, E. Noms ,introduced a :eehtl'lU 'supporting spring in theconetruction of, llpring.boa.rd, wagons, and obtained a"patent for(his improvement Saptember.8, 1874. His device was a'C-lBhaped .spring, the,e:ndil'm,which longi.. tudinally CODll1l.6otiilg brac6'o:'lods :,were. attached". which ex.· tended ,the wholedength,oftl:uwspmng.board, and,were Emed at one .,end ,in ,the hind aKleof' the wagon" and at, the other tothe·hes.d block,in front, by nuts, which the brace-rods 'adju,stable when it might be desirable totegulate· thetension,of apting. The spring..board at its center rested upon the steel spring so that the spring fonneda support for the board, and measurably strengthened and steadied it. The complainant's improvement presents a radical departure from that o{ N.,QF!is in fastened to the spring-board at the center, while the ends are allowed free play to elongate or retract in response to pressure at the center. ,His .a curved metallic spring 61 'iengtb that 'it is' rigidly secured of its length to a batten orossing the buckboard at its center, 'Or to the buckboard itself 'at its center, the ends' extend t'l1 e ,'ends ,'rhe are provided with a hook) which is 'received in a swinging link which is secul'ed,tothEl'bnckboard by a h0okot staple. Thus the ends.ol iheisptin,g are free to eXJ;land or retract, according' to the movement .'0£ ,the buckboard at and, while in Norris' construction the spring and springboard are independent of other, in the compiainant's they constitute practically a single device for the pnrpose of regulating the ela8ticityof :tlt:e wagon. The defendants have appropriated the complainant's im'· provement, unless they have dispensed with element of :his combination which consists of the device for holding the

ends of the spring. The complainant claims the combination of the sustaining spr·ings,the ihooks,..Qlnd the buckboard. He does not claim the swinging links, and it is evident from his specifi'cation that this part of the is not essential, but that the ends of directly,: in the hook or staple ali in ·the: link, andperfo:dnthe1functhe tiori assigned to them of elongatin!( or"teti'acth1'g pressure at the center. , ".,t '." "i:.. ;. The defendants' spri,ngrests metal op1l:ite; called flo keeper, which is fastened to the:,buckboard, and Jwlds the end of the spring in its place, but permits it to playback and forward. It performs the same function of complain;;; ant"s hook'.,' It performs tllis'functionih as complainant's, because it, at 'the . controls the end of the -spring in thei same manner, as complainant's device. It can btf'called It ttook justilEl:'tippropriately as complainant's 'can be' of them are technically hooks. If the complainant had not been the first to introduce a spring which completely supplementsthe'elasticity of the :dtaH 'PitHs of tbebti&kboard, by being rigidly connected with the bticklroai-ti"lit· center, but free at the ends to\ :W;the at the center, it would, be the duty 61' .douriF to' sM--iJ.! more 'he Ms: eriiplbyedto 't!lJCbtiJ.pliSh:tbis critically the result. If others before him hatl.1oeated tl1eSp1'ing but'had" used other devices! 'for.corttl'oUirigiiilts, jtlfe ends, it 'Would be necesslltryr, to :,maitkt ! tll.rif precise'poitit" Of departurElbetween his devicesandtheirsj7 But, as :he WaiEi the first to employ it for the peculiai'function: it he is to be protected, not only in the padicu1ar,deviceswhicn iha empldys for this purpose, but against allotl1e,r devices' which are 'the lca/iJ.not but believe that the 'complainant was the·abthor;or ail improveinent<of essential merit in buckboard wago'Dsj"and that the defendants'have SUbstantially appropriated his 'iuV'imtion. A dedree is ordered adjudgitig infringement ()f both: :claims of compliainant'spatent-; a.ud for an injullctidniand ing, with costs. r ' 'r ·· ,
..','.' . ,l. , " , ,,',

f

FEDElt>tn '., BEPOI,.TEl\.

I

Bet;)Tand others v,' LAMB.

I

.

1. The ordinBryllighj1i,eatlqu of,tlie words used, 1.Iy dehis inventjOll 1D-Jlst, have w):lenseeking for his meaning.
   o} ,
   

2.

'A claim shoiild be limited the specific ,improvementdestrribed, , :where the state of the art ddesnot admit of a great original discov-

to

OF THE ART.

ery

;.

a.LETTERS PATENT TUBES. Held. there/we, that a Patent for" the hnproved

deScribed, of making tubes by rolling the skelp with longitudinal ridges 'and furrows on its altern\1teedge-faces, and lapping t.he'same in a spiral direction. to'forma: lock thllmanllerspecified." was not applicable to the s,ubif;lquentpro,(luction of tubes with a ¢9ntinuou8 folded ontsideseam, made by a machine subsequently illvented and used for that purpose.-(ED.

In Equity. Samttel A. Duncan, Gawton l!1'owne, and Robt.H. Duncan, for complainants. John A. Loring and'W. H. Drury, for defendant. LOWE:L:L, C. J. ,J. B., Rapt,f.lissignor 'of the plaintiffs, ob. tained his patent, No. now in suit, October 13, 1869. He, pegins by saying that his invention consists in a spirallylapped metal formed with a lock following the direction (!If tpe spiral, by oonstrncting the skelp, of which the tube or tuhingis made, with a tongue and groove, or locking ridge and furrow, on reverse sideaof its oppo'site edges; so that, on spirally wrapping the skelp around the mandrel, its edges·not only lap one over the other, but also i;lstablish a lock by the fit of the two topgues in' the grooves of the skelp; after,which the tubing may. be welded, the spiral joint closed by soldering, Qpotherwiilie ., ,He thendeficribes and draws askelp with grooves andfu,rrQws on each side, which he.aa.ys:may.bemade by rolling the }le8(jed. sl\elp in one operation; and "that the sawe heat ,to, E;lffect t,he I;lpiral :twist of tlle skelp around a rotating in doing which the edges' of the