Thatrthe patentee's device secures ,9111 rthese advantages is apparent from, the specification and drawings; Some 'of these· advantageijf .were ,'by' like already employed Sl;1ch tM patentee's instrumentalities are obviously those of an ,ordiJ:iary skilled Thus, a .radial arm, bent over 80 as to clasp the rolland prevent its slipping off the reel, is S'hown in Cockcroft,'a1i(l the use of double arms:issuggested. The holIowsenter axle Ulillso found in the art, and it certainly was not iriveiithm to punch' nall holes in the arnis, so as, to fasten the ,device against a post, nor to bend the. ,end of ,the coil over a nail to keep it 'from reeling out'when not in 'use.. Nowhere hl the prior art, however,' is, there found t)ie device ,for ''braking,'' whereby the arms are tightened upon the ,coil or loosened if required., In view of the evidence' as to the favorable reception,accorded by the trade to tile cary reel, I am not prepared to hold that there was no invention iIi. his combination, which obtains from the old instrumentalities this novel function, besides their old and obvious ones. The is an extremely narrow one. It would not be infringed by defendant's device if the latter had its arms rigid against compression, so that they cOl;1ld not act as a brake; but, on proof as it stands, the combination of claim 2 to, 'exhibit patentable novelty, and it is certainly convenient and useful. . The 'Claim does not ,specifically set forth this element of the combination functionally" but the reference therein to the "openings therein, d a and d 4, adapted' to' receive for the purpose set. forth," is suffastening pins, substantially, ficient to warrant the court in reading into the claim, in order to patent, the fUIlction set forth, in the specification in the uphold sentence beginniIlg, "Furthermore, the 'fnstening liails," etc. Complainant may, therefore, take the usual decree on claim 2 of this patent. No costs to either side.
r " , ' ,
UNION HARROW CO. v. ROBERT O. REEVEg CO. (Oircult Court, S.'1); New July 22. 1898.)
PATENTS-INVENTION-HARROWS AND CULTIVATOR&.
The La DQwpatent, No. 301,729"forlmprovements In disk-harrows, conslstl;I/gmainly In the Interposition of buffer-heads or eqnlvalent mechanism between the inner ends of the disk-gangs for receh:i\lg their side thrust without coupling the axles toge,ther, held to Involve patentab:e In" I vention.
This was, a suit inequity ))ytJ1e Union ,Company against the Robert C. Reeves Company for alleged l,DfrlDgement of a patent. Final hearing on pleadings fiqd', proofs. ''.. ' , John M. Gardner, Emanuel Jacobus, for 4efendant. Circuit Judge. The pati:!nt in suit is No. 301,729, is.sued July 8, 1884, to complainant's asl'rignor, one Charles La Dow. The specification states that the ,,' ,to wheel-harfow8 In ;whl;eh mechaplsm Is employed
for reducing friction, and for adjusting the angles of the disk-gangs, and also for adapting the gangs to better conform to the Irregularities of the soIL
EWAN V. TREDEGAR &: CO.
The claim alleged to be
"(1) In a disk-harrow, the combination of a pole, crossbar, disk-gang!! "llpable of being set at an angle to the line of draft, and buffer-heads or equivalent mechanism between their Inner ends for receiving their side thrust without coupling their axles together."
The use of two gangs of disks set at an angle to each other prevailed long before the complainant's patent. If set at one angle, the tendency of the gangs when driven through the soil was to run apart; if set at another, to come together. If allowed to come together, the inner disks would soon be destroyed. It would seem, as defendant suggests, that it should not have required inventive talent to devise buffer-heads to take the strain and relieve the inner disks; but in the face of the evidence that the trouble existed for years, and that the manufacturers who were continually appealed to for a remedy produced only such devices as rigid axles, separating yokes, and universal joints, whose action was far from satisfactory, it must be concluded that there was invention in La Dow's device, simple though it be. which at once commanded extensive sales. The nearest, and indeed the only, approach to it in the prior art, is La Dow's own (patent 187,392, of February 13, 1877), which shows two balls fixed on the inner ends of the gang-axles, and inclosed in a box, so that they would not ride over each other or jam. The defects of this device are made plain by the testimony and the exhibits, but it seems to have required more than the ordinary workman's skill to discard the box, and flatten down tbeballs into buffer-heads; otherwise, it would surely not have taken seven years to make the advance. Inspection of defendant's device demonstrates infringement. Complainant may take usual decree for injunction and accounting.
EWAN v. TREDEGAR CO.l (District Court, .E. D.· VirgInia. April 20; 1882.)
DEMURRAGE-DELAY IN DIRCHARGINO.
If the ship is prevented, after getting Into her dock, from securing a fit place for discharging by any cause over which she has no control, then
1 This case has been heretofore reported In 5 Hughes, 401, and Is now published In this series, so as to include therein all circuit and district court casps elsewhere reported which have been Inadvertently omitted from the Federal Reporter or the Federal Cases.