PALMER v. PA'ITERSON et aI.
(Circuit Court,E. D. Pennsylvania., October 21, 1895.) The Palmer patent, No. 271,510, for a "hammock or b(Jdbottom," construed lfberally, as covering avery useful and novel invention, and being of a primary character; and claim 1 thereof held infringed, claim 2 Iwld not infringed;
OF Cr,ArMs-HAMMOCKS. ' " ' '
Thi$ was a bill by Isaac E. Palmeragllinst James Rand George F. Patterson for alleged infringement of a patent relating to ham· mocks. Cowen, WckersoIi & BJ;own,for complainant. Wm. W. Porter, Frederick J. Geiger, and Ernest Howard Hunter. ' for respondents.
I , .. . ,
Circuit Judge. It' has beeQ. cQnceded that, as to George Pattersori,the bill in this' should be dismissed. This will accordingly be done; and what follows is fo be understood as relatingonly to remaining defendant, James R , This suit' isfOllllde(l upo,n an alleged infringemen.t of the first two 'claims ofletter,Elpatent N,0.271,510, issued to IsaacE::palmer, Jan. nary 30, 1883, :fo1' "hammock or bed pottom." ,The question of infringement is the only subst,antial one, and its right solution depends upon wllic.h shouM be given to the, claims sued on, "",The ,inventioQ, though not a great. on:e,.' is of considerable merit,' lind may, I think, be properly classed liS a primary one. Hammocks of, course, old ; but Plllmer, as the, ,show, was the first to dIscover or devise any means by which they could be efficiently and when mnde of light, woven fabric, as, for Qrdinary outdoor use, it is desirable"they should be. rn this,,' 11.e, ,from that had been done supplIed,not only a very useful, but an also entirely-novel, contribution to the art. 'He is entitled to as liberal an iQteryretation ot'his as adherence to the natural meaning of its terms will of. The first Claim is as follows:,
,"(1) A bed bottom of loops at its, ends, formed of unwoven portions of the threads of the warpot the fabric, substantially as herein described." ,',',' ,,'
"This plainly, that what wail'intended to be 'claimed was, 'br9adly, anY,l,lammock of having the suspensjon loopl!ldescribed.The only ex:i>l.'es& limitations the use(shallbe a th3:-( t1:l.e,re shall be and be.fofweQ9t1;llil:wpvenportions of t1J.ewal1>. ' '.I)ls seems to me to not ,Ilierelya fair, and reasonJl.ble :nnderstan<ling of t1l.e terms of this, claim,bl,1t, indeed, the only one. ' Nor do I ftnd ,a,riytping in t1;J.e specifi,cation, or in the prior art, to require its restriction within it'ar!;ow¢r rbounds than its 'terms prescribe. In that part of the speciftcation 'whic):Lrelates to the subject-matter of this particular claim, precisely the same language is used as in the claim itself; and the drawings which are re-
P. H. MURPHY· MANUF'G CO. V.EXCELSIOR·· CAR-ROOF CO.
feITed to as "embodying" the invention, and which do illustrate its principle quite clearly, cannot, in my opinion, be justly regarded as circumscribing its scope. Nothing was previously known which, upon the construction now given to this claim, the patentee can be said to have appropriated. The earlier patents set up are without pertinency; The sligptest examination of them makes this so apparent as to render any discussion of them unnecessary. Neither is it requisite to descant upon the "Mexican hammock," or the fringed towels, which have been adduced. Palmer's invention is essentially different from anything which is shown by the former; and the fringe of a towel furnishes no rational analogy, either in character or function, to the suspension loops of this patent. Infringement of the first claim has been established. The defendant makes his loops in a manner different from that which is indicated in the patent in suit; but the claim in question is not for a method of forming. suspension loops, but for the loops themselves, by whatever method constructed, provided they be formed of unwoven portions of the threads of the warp of a woven fabric intended and used for a hammock. Therefore, as the defendant, admittedly, constructs his hammocks of woven fabric, and employs unwoven portions of its warp for their suspension, the real and only question if! as to whether he foms suspension loops, and it appears to me to be obvious .that he does. He does not make them. of precisely the same form as that in which, in practice, they are made by the plaintiff. He reduces the length of the several loops,. but by doing this their function is not affected, or their object varied. The plaintiff's loops are united at both ends of each loop to the body of the texture, while the· defendant's are formed by returning the threads for a short distance upon their outgoing portion, and there fastening the two limbs together. In my opinion, this difference, whether so intended or not, is merely evasive, and not substantial. The second claim is as follows:
"(2) A hammock or bed bottom having its end composed of doubled portions of a woven fabric, and having said doubled portions united by ll- series of suspension loops formed of unwoven portions of the same warps,which enter into the weaving of the doubled fabric, substantially as herein described."
This claim is not infringed. The defendant's construction does not have doubled portions of a woven fabric, or anything else, "united" by its suspension loops. Let a decree be prepared in accordance with this opinion.
P.H. MURPHY MANUF'G CO. v. EXCELSIOR CAR-ROOF CO. (Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri, E. D. October 19, 1895.)
No. 3,801. L
The test of invention in all cases. is whether the device or improvement is the product of an original conception of the patentee. It .must involve something beyond what is obvious to persons skilled in the art to which it relates, and it must amount to something more than a mere carrying