BRIDGEPORT MFG. CO. V. WILLIAM ScHOLLHORN CO.
The rigid supporting frame mentioned in these claims is the motor frame of the Rice patent, which is not found in the Walker apparatus. Nor does the Walker motor frame proper show the side pieces sleeved on the axle of the car, and carrying the journal bearings for the shafts, nor a motor frame independent of the motor. From observations already made, it is manifest that the Walker motor has not appropriated the combinations covered by these claims. In addition to the matters that we have already referred to in detail, we think, with the learned circuit judge, that:
"It cannot be denied that the respondent was within Its right In using Its peculiar motor, which normally locates Its armature at Its axis, and, as a necessary element to the operation of Its motor, In using Its armature shaft as a pIvot. All this Is In the common field of mechanical construction. What would remain would be the question of holding the motor in position. This would, In ordinary course, be by support either at Its center or at Its radial poles, and. In either case. rigidly or elastically. In the normal work of constructIon, the mechanical engineer must select; and, In an art of so common a character as that of so suspending heavy working parts elasticaIly as to minimize the shock, he might rightfully select either. This Is 11.11 which has been done by the respondent. Therefore, if complainant's patent is so broad as to cover respondent's device, It is too broad to be sustained."
The conclusion we have reached is that, in construction and mode of operation, the Walker motor is distinctly different from that described in the Rice patent, and that it does not infringe any of the claims relied upon by the complainant. The decree of the circuit court is affirmed, with the costs of this court to the appellee.
BRIDGEPORT MFG. CO. et aI. v. WILLIAM SCHOLLHORN CO. (Circuit Court ot Appeals, Second Circuit. January 2, 1899.) No. 29.
PATENTS-VALIDITY AND INFRINGEMENT-PLIERS.
'I.'he Bernard patent, No. 427,220, for pliers havIng parallel 'aws and sheet-metal handles, so attached as to apply the power at both sides of the jaws, and having an unobstructed opening between the jaws for the passage of a rod, wire, or tool, construed, and held valid and Infringed as to claim 1, and not Infringed as to claim 2.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Connecticut. This was a suit in equity by the William Schollhorn Company against the Bridgeport Manufacturing Company and others for alleged infringement of a patent for an improvement in pliers. The circuit court rendered a decree for complainant upon the first claim of the patent involved (84 Fed. 674), and the defendants have appealed. Henry Schreiter and Alexander Van Cott, for appellants. John K. Beach, for appellee. Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges. SHIPMAN, Circuit Judge. The questions upon this appeal are in regard to the validity and infringement of claim 1 of letters patent No.
91 FEDEJM.li. RIjlPORTER.
6, 1890, to,WiJJiam A. Bernard, for an improve.The circuit. court for district of Connecticu:1i found ment ill ip. favor of complainant, which is the present owner of the patent, up<ln eac:Q, issue. The inventor said in his specification that his object was."to unobstructed :opening through between the parallel j:nvs for tb.thPUfSsage ofa rod, wire, or, tool,and to adapt sheet-metal handles to the jaws in such a maJ./ner'that the power win be applied E!!Iually ,sides of the jaws" to insure the proper strength and uniformity of movement." ,Henry B. Russell, in letters patent No. 188,262, dated ):larch 13,1877, aMOhester W.Sykes, in letters patent No. 21,525, dated September 14, 1858, had shown pliers with parallel jil'Vs; 'Each device contained a siJ;1gle pair of, inside of the handles ill each gence in the length of the jaws so 'that the bearing for the handles was very ,narrow. The,Bevllard device ·has. "doubleX·lever-handles of space is left Jaws, ilie Jaws beIIlg mclo$ed' wIth the, lever';; flnd there IS a broad healing surface 'upon thejaw,s, which to grasp , firmly the rod to be held. The patent to Peter Broudbrooks, No. ,October 27,; 1885, was, simply for »ippers, which 0(&'0 levers pivoted toeach,qther, the jaw of the lever sig:s Neitlierpatent is an anticipation of invention, which was a decided advance upon Sykes 'and Russell, because the rod or wire to be gripped could be passed between the jaws throughout their length, and held with a firm grip. The means by which this was acwere inventive in their character. Th.e t:w() claims are as follovvs: ' (1) The eomblnatlon. with the solld ja'¢s, f, f', of lever-handles, a, a',
b, b', of sheet metal, bent up to form holloW hand portions, the parts, a', b', being flat, or nearly so, and crossing each other at opposite sides of the jaws, and connected by the pivot, d,substantlally as set forth. . . (2) The combination, with the parallel jaws, f, f', of the lever-handles, It,i, a', b, b', of sheet metal, bent up to form hollow hand portions, the parts, a'i' b', being fiat, or nearly so,and crossing each other at opposite sides of the jaws, the pivotal rivets, d,d, in line wIth each other, tM rivets, e, passing tPrough the respective parts,a', b', and the jaws and rivets, 3, passIng through the metal of the handles and through slots in the jaws, substantially as set forth.
V. WILLIAM SCHOLLHORN 00.
The question of most importance is that of the infringement of claim 1. In the patented device the crossing handles are pivoted, as they cross each other by a separate rivet, d, so that, as there are two pairs of cross handles, the.re are two rivets in line with each other, and at opposite sides of the jaws, and there is no the jaws. In the defendants' pliers the two pair of cross are pivoted upon a common pivot, which extends across the jaws, and a rod cannot be P3:ssed below the fulcrum of the tool. . The manner in which the heels of the jaws are connected with the handles differs from the method described in claim 2. 'fhe connection in' the Bernard tool by means of a slot and pin does not .exist, but a cam is substituted, upon which the heels of the jaws slide when they are moved outward. There is no infringement of claim 2. ' The specification, which describes the devices of both claims, that the levers are pivoted by two rivets, d, and claim 1: says that thlt lever,s are connected by the pivot, d. .If the claim ,necessarily' limits
91 FEDERAL REPORTER.
the construction to two rivets on opposite sides of the jaws, so that there is no obstruction between the handles as well as jaws, there is no infringement. The whole device is described in claim 2, which requires an open space between handles as well as jaws. The part of the device from the jaws to the fulcrum of the tool is contained in claim 1, which describes the means by which the jaws are enabled to grasp the rod or wire throughout their entire length, which is the substantial iinprovement upon former tools, and is contained in the defendants'device. A common pivot is the equivalent of the two pivots, d, of claim 1. The decree of the circuit court is affirmed, with costs.
MICHAELIS et al. v. LARKIN et al. (CIrcuit Court, E. D. Missouri, E. D. February 7, 1899.) No. 4.026. L p, . The rejection of a claim in an application for a patent, and its subsequent modification by the applicant, and his acceptance of a patent on - the amended claim, amounts to a disclaimer as to the matter eliminated. manufacture of chloroform, construed, and held valid, but limited by the specification and the proceedings in the patent office to the process of manufacturing chloroform from the ketones having a higher boiling po-int than acetone, and using as the foundation a crude -or "brown" acetate, as distinguished from the commercially purified or "gl'ay" acetates. As so construed and limited, the patent is not infringed by the manufacture of chloroform from acetone, derived from the dry distillation of the gray acetate of lime, the distillate containing 86 per cent. of acetone, though it also contains, as a necessary incident to distillation, which clj,nnot practicably be separated, from 3 to 5 per cent of the higher boiling ketones, covered by the patent. .
T OF CLAIMS-AMENDMENT OF ApPLICATION.
2. SAME-INFRINGEMENT-IMPROVEMENT IN MANUFACTUHE OF CHLOROFORM. The Michaelis patent, No. 322,194, claim 2, for an Improvement in the
This is a suit in equity by Gustavus Michaelis and others against Edward Hiles Larkin and others for the alleged infringement of a patent. Dickerson & Brown and Campbell & Ryan, for complainants. Paul Bakewell, for defendants. ADAMS, District Judge. This is a suit for the infringement of letters patent of the United States, No. 322,194, for certain new and useful improvements in the manufacture of chloroform and acetic acid, or purified acetates, dated July 14, 1885. The patentee describes his invention as follows:
"This invention is based upon the discovery that when a crude acetate, as of lime, is subjected to a dry distillation, only very small quantities of acetone, CHaOOCH s, boiling at 56° centigrade, are formed, while very considerable quantities of dimethylacetal, C2H,(OCH s) 2, boiling between 60° and 65° centigrade: ethylmethylacetal, C2H,(OC 2H G )OCH s , boiling at 85° centigrade; methyldimethylketone, CH sOOCH 2CH s, boiling between 75° and 77° centigrade: methylethylketone, CHSCOC2HG' boiling between 75° and SOO centigrade; diethylketone, C2HGOOC2H5, boiling between 75° and SOo centigrade; metacetone, C6 H 10 0, boiling between 82° and 86° centigra.de,-and other still higber boiling ketones, a.s dumasln, and