COMBINED PATENTS CAN CO.
V.
LLOYD.
153
years' public enjoyment of an invention, with the consent and allowance of the inventor, is evictence of abandonment, and a bar to an application for a patent. a public disclaimer in the patent itself, should be construed equally favorable to the pnb1ic. Xothing but a clear mistake or inadvertence, and a speedy application for its correction, is admissible when it is sought to enlarge the claim."
The bill must, for the foregoing reasons, be dismissed, with costs, and a decree may be prepared accordingly. McKENNAN, C. J., concurred.
COMBINED PATENTS CAN Co.
LLOYD.-
(Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. :B'ebruary 4, 1882.) PATENT-DrpuCATION OF CLAIMS-AGGREGATION OF WELL-KNoWN ELEMENTS.
A p:\l.ent contained two claims-the first for a can made of sheet metal, in which the top or bottom is joined to the sides by a dOUble-recessed clamping lap-,j{;int, suhstantially as described; the second for a similar can with the joint capable of being soldered by dipping. Held, that as it appeared from the spetifications that the joint in the can described in the first claim was capable of heing soldered by dipping, the second claim was included in the first, and therefore void. Held, further, that the first claim, interpreted with reference to the specifications, was for a mere aggregation of old and well-known elements, and was also void.
Hearing on Pleadings and Proofs. Bill in equity to restrain infringement of reissued patent No. 7,682, for an improvement in sheet-metal cans. 'fhe answer denied infringement and alleged want of novelty. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. Dickerson « Dickerson, for complainant. Henry Baldwin, Jr., for respondent. McKENNAN, C. J. This suit is founded on reissued letters patent No. 7,fiS2, dated May 15, 1877, to Herman Miller, assignor of the complainant, for an improvement in sheet-metal cans. The original patent was dated June :33, 1R63, and that is the earliest date to which the invention claimed is assigned. The patent contains two claims, viz.: II (1) A can or other vessel made of sheet metal, in which the top or bottom is joined to the sides by a double-recessed clamping lap-joint, substantially as described. (2) A can or other vessel made of sheet metal, in which the top or bottom is joined to the sides by a clamping lap-joint, which is capable of being soldered by dipping, substantially as described."
*Reported by l<'rank P. Prichard, Esq., ofthe Philadelphia bar.
154
FEDERAL REPORTER.
Construing the first claim, as we think it ought to be, in connection with the directions given for the construction of the can in the body of the specifications, we are of opinion that the second claim is comprehended in the first, and is, therefore, a partial duplication of it. It claims a can with a double-recessed clamping lap-joint, which is capable of being soldered by dipping. The can referred to in the first claim has this capability, because it is directed to be constructed with the joint described, which is to be soldered by dipping. Of course, it is capable of being so sold{Jred, and hence the second claim embraces only a quality or feature, which is covered by the first claim, as an inseparable incident to the can therein claimed as an entirety. We must, therefore, dismiss this claim from further consideration as void. Carlton v. Bokee, l'TWall. 463. Soldering the joint is a means of joining the top and bottom of the canto the sides, prescribed in the specification, and it must, therefore" be tegarded as part of the structure covered by the first claim. That claim, then, interpreted with reference to the specification, is for "a can or other vessel made of sheet Illetal, in which the top or bottom is joined to the sides by a double-recessed clamping lap-joint," soldered by dipping. Is this a new and patentable invention? All its constituents were old and well known at the date of the patent. In the English patent to Emile Peltier, dated August 27, 1861, is described a double-recessed clamping lap-joint, of which that described in the patent in question is a counterpart. As cans or boxes embodying this joint were intended to hold gunpowder or other similar articles, the application of solder to it was not contemplated. But the use of solder to add stiffness and strength to metal joints, and to render them impervious to fluids, is immemorial. And in the English patents of Henrietta Brown and Walter Brown, dated in 1850 and 1855, respectively, the application of solder by bathing to metal joints, to render them fluid-tight, is directed and described, and is spoken of as having been before used. The patentee has merely aggregated these elements in his can, without causing them to perform, by their united action, any function which they did not perform separately before. In other words, he has taken the Peltier joint, and rendered it fluid-tight by solder, applied by dipping the joint in a bath. In the conception or material embodiment or operation of such a union of well-known elements, we cannot detect any patentable and hence the bill must be dismissed, with costs.
WlRK BOOK SE;WING MA.CHINil CO. V. STEVENSON.
155
WIRE BOOK SEWING MA.CHINE CO. V. STEVENSON.-
(Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. January 30,1882.) 1. PATENT-INTERFEUENCE-DECIBION OF PATENT-OFFICE-EFFECT OF.
While the decision of the pa.tent-office authorities upon the question of priority between interfering patents is not conclusive upon the ccurt, it is nevertheless entitled to sufficient weight to cast the burden of proof on the party against whom it was rendered. 2. SAME.
Letters patent No. 239,927 for improvement in book-binding, sustained.
Hearing on Pleading and Proof. Bill in equity to restrain infringement of reissued letters patent No. 8,195, for improvement in book-binding. Respondents claimed nnder letters patent No. 239,927, for improvement in book-binding. Respondents, in their answer, admitted that these two patents interfered, but claimed priority for their own, and set forth a decision of the commissioner of patents in their favor. H. T. Fenton, for complainants. Munson J; Philipp, for respondents. BUTLER D. J., (McKENNAN, C. J., concurring.) The interference charged in the bill, between the letters patent No. 8,195, under which the plaintiffs are licensees, and No. 239,927. owned by the defendant, is admitted in the answer. The first question open for consideration therefore is,-which of the respective patentees is entitled to the claim of priority of invention, as against the other. This having been submitted to the authorities of the patent-office, was there decided in favor of the defendant. While this decision is not conclusive here, (Machine Co. v. Crane, 6 O. G. 801,) it is nevertheless entitled to sufficient weight to cast the burden of proof on the plaintiff. The only evidence before us is that which the department heard j and an examinu.tion of this has served to strengthen the presumption stated. The second and only other question raised is, are the defendant's letters void for want of novelty? Here again the defendant starts with a presumption in his favor, arising out of his patent. A careful examination of the testimony has revealed nothing sufficient, ill our judgment, to overcome this presumption. A decree must therefore be entered for the defendant· · Reported by I<'rank P. Prichard, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.