tion of patentability, and this presumption has been strengthened by the general acceptance of the device, the acquiescence of those skilled in the art, and their willingnefls to accept licenses thereunder. ,We have carefully considered the questions of prior publication and anticipation. 'I'he d.i1ferencesbetween the patent in suit and those cited as most nearly approaching the Garty device have been fully and particularly set out in the opinion of the learned judge below. We fully concur in his conclusions, and refrain from drawing the distinctions, lest we should but, irepellt what he has so clearly expressed. Infringement is charged in the bill, and not denied, except in the un· verified answer. Oomplainant's witness, after examination of defendant's system, testified that it was constructed and organized com· pletely in accordance with the instructions contained in the patent in suit. . Though these faots were peculiarly within their own knowl· edge, the defendants offered no contradictory evidence beftring on the question. We are of opinion that the patent is valid and infringed. The decree· of the circuit colirt will be affirmed.
LYONS''''; BISHOPet aI.
C01i\rt, S. D. L
May 28, 1899.)
<;If ,hat boxes or no' Invention for frljJllell, previously frame of buckraiil. and coarse cloth; OIf which the hat may be securely fastened by .r ' a hat pin or other similar device.'
M1 the, construction
The,Lyons'patent,NQ. 573,739"for an Improvement in hat boxeaot trun/ls, II:! Viold on .Jace
Mc(}il1, foF,Jomplaihllnt. GeQ; J. Murray, for
· '".' ·. . i
SHIPMAN, Circuit Judge. 'This bill in is founded upon the infringement of letters patent No. 573,789, dated December 22, 1896, or frunks. The specification states for an 'improvement in hat' -whatis also wellknown..:...that hat boxes have been roadecontaining rests or supports for ladies' hats, but that these supports were constructed of. fragile material, like pasteboard, or gauze stiffened with wire, and not of sufficient tenacity to allow of an adequate securing agency, like a hat pin. One object of the invention was to have a hat box with a plurality of hat or bonnet S\1pports,and the second object was to provide an improvedsnpport havihg· substantially the shape of the'hufuan .head, and to which a bonnM can be secured by the insertion' 'of a hat pin.. The 'first. object was pbtained by having a box devoted to the transportation of bonnets,· alia the second was attained by having such rest made()f buckram and another piece of like coarse fabric and a piece of trunk lining, glued together, the buck· ram having been shaped over a form, and the three pieces being pressed together. 'When the bonnet is placed upon this form, or dummy, it call be 'securelyfastened·bj a hat pin. The specification
is elaborately drawn, and presents with care the advantages by the use of buckram. The patent eontains six elaims, the first and broadest of which is as follows: "A hat box or trunk having a lining provided with a rest or support composed of an inner textile material of a springy or elastic nature, such as buckram, and an outer eovering of a less resilient nature. as set forth." The defendants have demUl'red to the bill npon the ground that the letters patent are void for want of invention apparent upon the face of the patent, in view of common and general knowledge. Trunks or hat boxes provided with a.fr;ame made of pasteboard or gauze stiffened with wire, upon which a lady's hat can be carried, were well known, and it is also a matter of common knowledge that the bodies of ladies' bonnets are frequently made of buckram, which is a coarse linen cloth, stiffened with glue,or two oj' three. thicknesses glued together. For example, Judge Blatchford, who was examining a patent for a stamped or embossed hat body in Baldwin v. Schultz, 9 BIatchf. 494, Fed. Cas. No. 824, says in his opinion that as early as 1857 bonnet frames were made of two or more thicknesses of muslin stuck together and shaped into the form of a hat by means of smooth dies. The improvement of the patentee was the substitution of a frame of buckram and coarse cloth for a wire and gauze frame, and, although the improvement is stated with much circumstance in the specification, it is a very simple affair, and, inasmuch as everything was told by the patentee except that the frames of bonnets were often made of thicknesses of buckl'am, the subject of patentability can be as well ascertained upon a demurrer as after proofs have been taken. If the public had not known that bonnet frames could be securely and without injury fast· ened by a ha,t pin thrust through a buckram frame, the patentability of the invention could not be safely attacked, but the patentee simply put into the place of a flimsy frame one which had been known to the milliner as enduring the test of actual use, and the substitution of the improved frame does not rise to the dignity of patentable invention. The demurrer is sustained.
et al. June 20, 1899.)
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
PATENTS-IMPLIED LICENSE TO USE-RIGHTS OF PARTNERSHIP OF WHICH PATIS A MEMBER.
A patentee of a process for ruby-staining glassware formed a partnership with his father, the sole business of the firm being the coloring of glassware by the process of the patent, which reqUired, in the treatment of the ware, muffles 01' kilns of peculiar construction. The partners purchased a plant, and built a number of the Illutlies, which they used, conducting the business as equal until the patentee's death, after w/1ich his father, as his administrator. in good faith and with the approval of. the court, sold decedent's interest in the partnership,. the value of which depended almost pIitirely upon the continuance of tile business. The purchaser had no knowledge that the process used was patented. The purchaser and the father continued the business in partnership. afterwards admitting another partner, and on the father's death the surviving partners bought his interest. A few additional muffles were also constructed. Two years after the father's dpath an administratrix d. b. n. was appointed