,S6:JrEDjJJRAL REPORTElR., '
ing or overhanging parts of which, whetheltJlolished fOJ;'the not, the light passing through mica plates ,may ,strike. aij.dJ)e.l'(;!flected. going further the discussi?n, ,jt is to refer to the fireplace heater of James Spear, as Illustrated III a in 1884 at Philadelphia. Aroun(l that heater is a frame, of which the catalogue says: I'The frame is large and full nickel plated, has,a concaved, surface, and extendi;l back some distance, catching'the light from the mica windows, and acts as a refleCtor, cast. ing the light and heat into t:tiero(lln." In. this device the inturning is on horizontal .instead of vertical lines, and' the rellection, of course, is from that part of the frame is adjacent to the sideoftbe heater; but the mica is, placed between the reflector and the fire, and the obsection and rejection tllat IIthere is no provision of an iJi'turned flector serving in any manner. to reflect rays of light,ai;Id heat from the upp¢r; of the fire pot" is without forceUPQIl the question of pateJi,tal:>ility., Nothing was lacking to the Spear device to fulfill that condifionbut to put a mica. window in the uppe.r part, W-hich was already and a reflector in prpper To do that certainly could not have been invention" It.maybe 'remarked that the lIre:(lecting principle". and the mechanism involved in this patent have long been exemplified in .the ordinary forms· ot lamps and glass chimneys, and the reflectors and .shades' used in connectipn therewith. '. , .'. . . There is a degree of credit due to one who explores out of the way or hidden places, and brings to the light and to the uses of. civilization, as "abando1;1,ed the discoveries. of others, whose genius "fas itself a disqualificatlonfor the achievement of but it no part of tlIe intention of th,e patentIaw to foster attempts to.a:p,pl"opriatea.ndJ,Donopolize things of cOIDm<!p.P1ace character, and of familiar use, on thegrQund: that, thOughfrequentJy em· even in pl\tenteddevices, theyb,a;ve not tions, and thej,r uses, and ,benefits exploited.' The obvious need not be explained. .The decree below is reversed, with C9sts,a,nd with direc: tioll ,to bill. ". .: i ',' '. '
;:;::O:::::i::=;;::::::;=:::::. ", , "
: W,ELECTRIC CRANE' OQ. v. (Circutt Court of Appeals, SecOlild"C.lrcuit. March , No.'
of · itIotorscon'trOlIed from a' comlllon pomt to move the se'vetalpllTts' of· the old· overhead trolley frame, which had previously. been opeJ;ated by three Indeby stea.m, power., : i . . . " ,/: ,
" 'The Sha'f No; <\3q,487, for Impl'OVement in electric. ,cranes, heZd ItlY:;tlld as ,td 'claJms t, for want invention. . :
' . ,. ".
',! , . ' , : '
ern District of. New York.
Appeal from theOircuit Court of
States for the South-
This cause 'here upon an appeal by 'eomplainant from a decree of the· clr<;¢tcourt, Southel,'n New 16, 1897, dismissing
SHAW ELECTRIC CRANE CO. V. SHRIVER.
the bill. The suit was brought for infringement of letters patent of the United States, No. 430,487, granted to Alton J. Shaw, June 17, 1800, for an electric crane. The patent carne first before Judge Acheson, sitting in the district of New Jersey, in a suit by the same complainant against Henry B. Worthington, incorporated, charging infringement of the first, second, and tenth claims of the patent. It was held void for want of invention, in an opinion which will be found in 77 Fed. 992. The suit in the Southern district of New York charged infringement of the first and third claims. 'fhe judge who heard the cause followed Judge Acheson's decision, and wrote no opinion.
Frederick H. Betts, for appellant. John R. Bennett, for appellee. Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. The record is a most voluminous one, covering 1,700 printed pages. Six experts of unquestioned ability have bef'll examined, three on. a side. The briefs are able, ingenious, and exhaustive; and yet, when the record has been read, the briefs studied, and the testimony of the experts analyzed, it is apparent that the question presented is, after all, a single one, which may be answered without any extended discussion. Indeed, it seems unnecessary to add anything to the brief opinion of the court in the district of New Jersey. The claims in question are:
"(I) In combination with a supporting track, a bridge mounted and movable thereon, a trolley or car mounted and movable upon the bridge, a hoisting drum or pulley carried by the trolley, and three independent electric motors, each in communication with a source of electricity, one of said motors being carried by and serving to propel the bridge, and the other two being carried by the trolley, and serving, respectively, to propel th trolley, and to actuate the drum or pulley." "(3) In a traveling crane, the combination of a bridge, an electric motor carried by and serving to propel the same, a trolley mounted upon the bridge. and an electric motor carried by the trolley. Wholly independent of the fit'st, and serving to propel the trolley over the bridge."
An overhead traveling crane is one where there is a movable traveling bridge, a traveling carriage or trolley on the bridge, and a hoist on the trolley, having its various movements actuated by power. The moving bridge imparts, to the body to be acted upon, motion forward or backward; the trolley imparts motion to one side or the other; and the hoist imparts motion up or down. It is manifest that. by the comhination of these motions, every conceivable path withi.n range of the crane's capacity may be given to the body sought to be moved. The more harmoniouslv these three movements are combined, the more quickly one or other of them may be changed, the more variety there may be in the speed of one or all of them, the more efficient will be the crane. Flexibility and smoothness of operation are important elements in such a combination. Overhead traveling cranes, driven ·by steam power and by hydraulic power, existed before the patentee began to experiment, and in these the three lines of motion were combined, under direction of the operator, to give to the weight moved such a path as he might select. It is conceded that the patent cannot be sustained upon the theory that Shaw substituted electric power instead of steam or hydraulic power in such machines; nor is there any contention
8f) FEDERAL REPORTER.,
that he' devised some new and useful variety of electric motor. Theentire.invention for Shaw is thus stated:
"Shaw's invention consists essentially, not only in the utilization of independent of his crane, electric motors, as the moving power for the several traveling but also in the adaptation of the motors and the crane each to the other by the location of one motor for moving the bridge directly upon the bridge Itself, and the location of another motor for moving the trolley directly upon the trolley itself."
The prior art shows traveling cranes operated by steam power, in which the three motions are imparted by three independent en· gines,-one for each motion,-so arranged that each engine can act as its own brake, and all can be worked at once if desirable. The prior art shows cranes in which these three independent motors were located upon the trolley, and other cranes in which they were located upon the bridge; and, of course, when so placed, a more or less complicated arrangement of clutches, pinions, and gearings was required to transmit the power of the independent motor to the place where it was to act. This was a drawback, but was apparently by the inventors of those earlier cranes less of a drawback than it would have been to furnish each independent motor with its independent boiler, or to supply steam from the single boiler through flexible pipes to motors whose position relative to that boiler was constantly changing. With electric motors. however, it is not essential to locate the motor so near to the source of power, and at a fixed distance from it. On the contrary, the motor may be placed in any position, and the power sent to it over a wire. It was the teaching of the electric art to attach the motor to the driven mechanism much more directly than other kinds of motor, and that, by reason of such direct application, much intermediate shafting and gearing could be dispensed with. It would seem that, given the three independent steam motors, and given the suggestion that electric motors be used to do the work, the locating of each directly on the part it was to move would suggest itself to those familiar with the art. We concur, therefore, with the conclusion expressed in Crane Co. v. Worthington, supra, that:
"The differences between the cranes of Force and Newton and the crane of the patent In suit are simply such as would naturally be made In changing the motive power, and whatever of superiority over previously Ilsed traveling cranes is to be found In tte crane of the patent is due altogether to the recognized advantages Inherent in the electric motor."
The decree of the circuit court is affirmed, with costs.
AMERICAN GRAPHOPHONE CO. v. WALCUTT et aI. (Circuit Court, S. D. New York. March 28, 1898.)
INJUNCTION-CONTEMPT-INFRINGEMENT 'OF PATENT.
Where the officers of a corporation, adjudged guilty of contempt for the violation of an Injunction against the infringement of a patent, claim that they were misled by the wording of the decree, they are entitled to the benefit of any fair doubt in that respect, and are not punished beyond making good the injury by paying over the profits and damages of the violation, with costs. ·