WHITE V.E. P. GLEASON MANUF'G CO.
v. E. P.
GLEASON MANl1F'G CO.
(Circuit Oourt, S. D. New York. April 28,1881.)
1. LETTERs PATENT-GLOBE HOLDER&-NoVELTY-INvALIDITY.
Reissued letters patent No. 7,286, for an improvement in globe holdars, are , invalid for want of novelty.
M. D. Conolly, for plaintiff. J. C. Clayton, for defendant. WHEELER, D. J. This suit is brought upon letters patent reissue No. 7,286, the original ofwhich was No. 162,731,dated April 27, 1875, entitled "An improvement in globe holders." The object of the invention is stated in the specification to be "to provide an elastic support or holder for globes or glass shades for gas-burners." The principal defence relied upon is lack of novelty in the invention. Among other alleged anticipating devices, the defendant put in evidence a holder sisting of elastic arms, with hooks or catches at the upper ends for receiving and holding the globe, fastened to a tube or collar, to encircle and rest upon the burner for support, and marked "Exhibit CG." The patent has' two claims: one for a globe-holder, having springot elastic arms, made with curved or bent' ends, forming hooks or catches for embracing the lower edge or flange around the lower opening of a globe; the other for "the improved globe-holder therein described, consisting of the' disk or center, having aperture for the' passage of a gas-burner and spring or elastic arms, terminating ill hooked or curved ends for the purpose, substantially, asset forth." It is claimed for the orator that each claim is susceptible of two con. structions: one broad, and the other narrow,-the broad, in 'each, covering every form of globe-holder having elastic arms, and the narrow covering, by the first, only holders having elastic arms with the' peculiar bent or curved ends for holding the globe, shown in the patent, and by the second, only holders with elastic arms riveted to a disk, center to rest on the.fixtures, as described in the patent. As to this Exhibit ee, it is not claimed for the orator but that it shows the invention covered by the first claim, broadly constrned, but is admitted that it does; nor but that it shows the invention covered by the second claim so construed; nor is it expressly claimed that there is anything covered by the first claim which this exhibit does not show. It is said, however, in the brief of the orator, that.. It does not, however, meet the 'second claim, under the limited construction suggested above, inasmuch as the base is a collar and not a disk, and the spring arms are not riveted thereto. The importance of this difference may be :prop-:
, FEDERAL REPORTER.
erly stated here. The collar is designed to slip over or slide down to position on the burner. It is unprovided. with any means of making it fast, and is quite obviously too insecure to permit its use to advantage. .A. mere touch will disturb its position and cause the globe sustained by it to topple over, lose its equilibrium, and fall. The fiat center or disk of the complainant's patent, on. the contrary, is designed and adapted to encircle the screw-shank of the gas fixture, and be there securely held against possibility of accidental disturbance by the burner, which is screwed down over it."
This part of the case turns upon whether the patent covers these differences; for, if it not, then this exhibit shows all of the orator's invention that is patented. and, if properly shown to have beEm known and used prior to the invention, anticipates it, although it may not show all that is mentioned or described in the patent, 01" all that it may be thought that the orator invented. In this view it, is to be noticed that there is nothing in the patent about a flat center or disk designed aqd adapted to encircle the screw shank of the gas fixture, and be there securely held by the burner screwed down ove,r it; nor any allusion to the disk, or to riveting the arms to it,as necessary, or otherwise, except that, in the description of the drawings, it is said that the "arms are to be fastened to the burner in any suitable manner, as by riveting to a disk having a central aperture through which the burner passes;" and in stating the, advantages of making the arms in separate pieces, where it is said that "if they and the disk or hub, or an equivalent center,were all formed in one piece, considerable loss of material would be incurred;" and in the second claim, which, as before recited, is for "the improved globeholder herein described, consisting of the disk or center having aperture for the passage of a gas-burner, and spring or elastic arms, terminating in hooked or curved ends for the purpose, substantially as set forth." The patent is .not for what is described, suggested, or hinted at, anywhere in the patent, but is for what is fairly described somewhere, and covered. by the claims of the patent, althongh the whole is to be looked at in order to ascertain what the claims do really cover, especially when the claims are like this second one, and are for the things mentioned in the claim, as set forth, or a8 described, or with other equivalent words, as is very common. This second claim, read with all the advantages of such construetion, does not· cover elastic arms with a disk merely, for, by its own words, it extends to a disk or center, I1nd center may not be a disk, although either must have an aperture for the passage of a gas-burner; and when the specification is looked to for the globe-holder, consisting of thes&
WHITE V. E. P. GLEA.SON MANUF'G CO.
things substantially as described, it shows a globe-holder with elastic arms fastened to the burner in any suitable manner, as well as a globe-holder with elastic arms fastened to a disk to go on the fixtures; for both are substantially set forth. There could not be a patent for a globe-holder, with elastic arms and another feature combined,with. out describing the other feature as well as the arms, and also claiming it as a .pad of the invention. The patent cannot be held to cover' anything more than a globe-holder with elastic arms, terminating in the curved ends for holding the globe, and a center with an apel·ture for the gas-burner, as the patentee said in the outset of his specification, "the same being designed as an improved substitute for the rigid holders with retaining sorews heretofore employed." So this exhibit, as it is conceded to be, by the orator's 'counsel, fully covers all there is of the orator's invention that is It is also claimed, in behalf of the orator, that. prior knowledge and use of that device are not shown with sufficient certainty to defeat a patent within the rule applied to this class of cases, and he cites the evidence of the witness Gleason, where he says, with reference to the Exhibit CC: "This particular globe-holder was sold to a man by the name of Brown, and used by him a number of years; his place of business being in West Houston street, New York," as being the only evidence on the subject. If this 'was the only evidence it might not be sufficient ; but it is not. At another place, in answer to the first cross-question, Gleason says they sold 20 or 30 gross of them in 1871 and in, 1872. The witness Daley, a manufacturer and seller of gas-fixtures, says, in answer to the last direct question, that his firm has purchased and sold them since 1873; and the witness Dare, in an answer to the last question put to him, says that those like Exhibit GG in the printed record, obviously from the question ing CC, and GG being a misprint, says that he manufactured them for the defendants either from 1867 or 1868 up to 1875, or in 1868 and 186H, and for four or five years. There is nothing in the case, other than the patent, showing the date of the invention. This evidence is not contradicted, and, standing thus, it shows satisfactorily, and beyond any fair or reasonable doubt, that globe-holders like Exhibit CC were well known and in use long before' the orator's invention, and, in the language of the statute relating to defences, "that he was not the original and first inventor" "of the thing patented." Section 4920. .Let a decree be entered dismissing the bill of complaint, withcQsts.'
SINGER MANUF'G CO. 'V. HENRY STEWART MANUF'G CO.
(Oircuit Oourt, S. D. New York. May 9,1881.)
LETTERS PATENT-NOVELTy-INVENTIVE SKILL.
Mechanism for adjusting the disks on the face plate of sewing machines by of regulating a thumb-screw on the top of the face plate,whereby the the tension of the thread is accessible to the right hand, as well as to the left, of the operator, is Dovel and involves the exercise of sufficient skill to entitle the inventor to a patent.
2. SAME-INFRINGEMENT-SUBSTITUTION OF EQUIVALENTS.
The substitution of well-known equivalents, for the minor parts of complicated mechanism, will not prevent infringement if the same result is accomplished by the two machines in ,substantially the same way.
Letters patent No. 214,513 are infringed by a machine having a thumb-screw at the top of the face plate to adjust the tension of the thread by working a rigid lever of the first order inside the face plate, connected with the disks in the same manner as in the others, but having a coiled wire spring between the lever and thumb-screw to relieve against the latter's action.
In Equity. Livingston Gifford, for plaintiff. W. H. McDougall, for defendants. WHEELER, D. J. In sewing machines having bracket-arms, tension was given, to the thread by a thumb-screw on the face-plate, accessible with convenience to the left hand only of the operator, working a lever of the third order, made elastic to relieve against the action of the thumb-screw, and connected by a standard passing through the inner with the outer one of the two discs, on the face-plate, between which the thread passed. Lebbens Baldwin Miller continued to adjust the discs by a thumb-screw on the top of the face-plate, readily accessible to the right hand as well as to the left of the operator, working an elastic lever of the first order inside the face-plate, and connected in the same manner as the other with the discs. He took out letters patent No. 214,513, for this improvement, which the orator owns. The defendants make and sell such sewing machines, having a thumb-screw at the top of the face-plate to adjust the tension of the thread by working a rigid lever of the first order inside the face-plate, connected with the discs in the same manner as the others; but having a coiled wire spring between the lever and thumbscrew to relieve against the action of the thumb-screw. This suit is brought upon the patent against this manufacture and sale as an infringement. Two questions are made: one is whether the change accomplished by Miller involved sufficient novelty'and skill to amount