93 FEDERAL REPORTER.
Aicoepting, then, the interpretation which the complainants put on the patel:j..t" to the effect that the curtain of the claim is one mounted as described in detail in the specification, the only debatable questions which remain are involved in, the application to the proofs in the recordof the rules in regard to patentable invention and anticipatiQn found in Packard v. Lacing-Stud 00., 16 O. O. A. 639, 70,:F;f>!d. 66, 68, and National Co. v. Boston Cash Indicator & Recorder 00., 156 U. S. 502,515, 15 Sup. Ct. 434, cited and applied by the circuit court of appeals for this circuit in Heap v. Mills, 27 O. C. A. 316, 82 Fed. 449, 453, 456. There can be no reasonable d,oubt of the novelty of the precise combination covered by the complainants' patent, or of its utility; and, as: to the questions of invention and anticipation, it seems to us that, according to the trend of the decisions in this circuit, the proofs in this record, as applied to the rules stated in the cases cited, sufficiently support the complainants. As the proofs are of the same classes which are frequently discussed in suits on patents, and as we assume that, in view of the importance of the interests involved, they will be reviewed on appeal, we deem it of no advantage to undertake to analyze them in this opinion. Some reference has been made to the differences in the letter of the three claims. We do not, however, understand that the respondent considers that it would obtain any advantage by relying on these differences; and, under the decisions of the circuit court of appeals in this circuit, we are satisfied it would be of no avail, in this case, to discriminate between them. The respondent also submitted a proposition to. the effect that the complainants' device is a mere aggregation. We understand, however, that this proposition was submitted only on the theory that we sustained the respondent's construction of the patent. Certainly, on the construction which we give the patent, there is no support whatever to the proposition that it covers only an aggregation, as that word is properly understood. Let there be a decree, in accordance with rule 21, for an accounting and an injunction on all the claims of the patent, the question of costs being reserved until the final decree.
PALMER v. CURNEN et at (CirCUit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. March 1, 1899.) No. 69.
PATENTS-VALIDITY AND INFItINGEMENT-HAMMOCKS.
The Palmer patent, No. 272,311, is void, as to claims 4 and 8, for want of novelty, unless they are construed as limited to a combination in which the suspension devices are the stirrups described in the specification; and In which the stretcher is provided with them as the means for attaching the suspension cords; and, if so limited, held, that they were not infringed.
Appeal from the Oircuit Court of the United States for the Southern'District of New York. This was a suit in equity by Isaac E. Palmer against Cornelius C. Curnen and EdmundSteinel' for alleged infringement of letters
PALMER V. CURNEN.
No. 272,311, granted February 13, 1883, to the complainant, for improvements in hammocks. The circuit court held that, even If the patent was valid as to the claims in issue (Nos. 4 and 8), they were not infringed by defendants' devices. 84 Fed. 829. From this decision the complainant appealed. Edwin H. Brown, for appellant. Curtis T. Benedict, for appellees. Bef.ore WALLACE, LACOMBE, and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. The court below was of the opinion that claims 4 and 8 of the patent in suit, unless limited to the specific devices described in the specification, were void for want of novelty, and, if .so limited, were not infringed by the hammocks of the defendants. The appellant, while acquiescing in that decision so far as it relates to claim 8, insists that as to claim 4 it was erroneous. Claim 4 is as follows:
"The combination, with a hammock, a stretcher or bar arranged beyond the end thereof, and a suspension stirrup or device. of suspension cords converging from the hammock towards the stretcher, and attached to the stretcher at two or more points, and suspension cords converging from the stretcher towards the stirrup or suspension device, and attached to said device, substantially as described."
Every element of this claim, broadly considered, was old, severally and in combination. This sufficiently appears by the patent granted Vincent P. Travers, November 18, 1879. That patent de8cribes a hammock hung upon cords which run from the body of the hammock to a notched bar or stretcher, arranged beyond the end thereof, from whence they converge to a suspension device. The notches in the stretcher are provided to space and hold the cords, and when, as the patent states may be done, two or more cords are put into the same notch, the cords converge from the hammock to the stretcher, as well as from the stretcher to the 8USpension device. The hammock of the patent in suit is made of any sUitable material. The stretcher is arranged transversely to the hammock body, and at a little distance therefrom, and is provided with at least two suspension devices, one secured at each end. The suspension devices are of stirrup form, and consist of a bar of metal with arms extending from opposite ends towards one another, to a point where they can be opened and closed. Besides the stirrups which are secured to the stretcher, there is another and similar one arranged at a distance from the stretcher, and opposite. the center thereof, from which the whole hammock is hung. The suspension cords converge from the hammock body to the stretcher, and are attached to it, and grouped by the stirrups; those on one side of the center of the hammock body converging towards one stirrup, and those on the other side towards the other stirrup. A group of suspension cords also converges from each stirrup on the stretcher to the suspension stirrup. 'fhe converging of the cords from the hammock body to the stretcher and from the stretcher to the snspension stirrup effects what the specification terms a "tri:mgular suspension." But the specification also points
93 :FEDERAL REPORTER.
out 'tba:t may be provided with any number 'of 8tirrups; and thellu8pension cords arranged in any number of groups; and it i8 obviou8 that, when this is done exten8ively, the triangular suspehsion practically disappears from the hammock. The claim specifies only those parts whieh co-operate to effect the triangular suspension. But it cannot include,equivalent8 for these parts, because the hammock of the TraverJJpatent contains equivalent parts which perform the same combination. When three or more of the central cords of that"hammock are put into the exterior notche8 of the stretcher, the feature of triangular suspension is introduced, though in a crude and less artistic manner than in the hammock of the complainant's patent. We are of the opinion that the claim is void for want of novelty, unless it can be saved by limiting it to a combination in which the suspension devices are the stirrups of the specification, and in which the stretcher is provided with them as the means for attaching the suspension cords. As the of the defendants does not contain these devices, they are not infringements of the clitim. The decree is affirmed, with costs.
SMITH v. MAXWELL. (Olrcult Oourt,N. D. New York.
April 12, 1899.)
in over-check guides for bridles, a closed'loop with a friction roller wRs>oJd.,: and an open loop without the roller was ,also old. Held, that !'Wai;lno merl!'ly uniting these two, deVices, so as to form an, loop :wIth a frictIon roller. , ,; ,
, +1ie Smith patent,
Np. 315,6)2, 'for ,an improvement In loops tor bridles, for want of Invention. ' , '-',
This was·a,suit in equity by GeorgeL. Smith, individually and as administrator, etc., against Harry' B. Maxwell,' for alleged infringe_ment ola 'patent for improvement in bridles. , COXE,»lstrict Judge. " ,This is an action' founded upon letters patent, No. 315,672, granted Apri114, 1885, t() George L. Smith for nnimprOVeIJl,eI;lt in Wops for brlIDes. The that prior to inv,ention over-check guides for bridles had been .with inwardly turnedendsl 8eparated sufficiently to permit the rein to be inserted e(igewise between them, yet not enough to permit thea,ccidental escape of therein, and closed loops have provided with a.closed loose or roUer. These features, separately not therefore claimed by me." The clailIl is as .follows:
"The herein-des.crlbed guide for check-reins, ,etc., C(}nlillstlng of uprights A. A, ha'l"jng ends. b bent laterally toward each other, c,Qnnecting-bar B, and loose sleeve or roller C." '