YA.LE LOCK MANU:r.'(i;CO.V.
MANUF'G
CO.
343,
sponding parts·of adjacent,boxes;;byAhin 'strips of wo,od, About an eighth of an inch wide,,;whiQ.pareno,teovered ,by metal. ,'Each box, has thu8,.itsow.n metal ,front, and, is 'disconnected from '.every ot4er box by an unprotected strip i of The: 'metallic covering, of .any one box does not join the metallic caveringof any other box: ' As iq the original infringing boxes, the sides of each box, near: its aTe protected by a metallic casing or flange. At first sight, this new series seems to be an unsubstantial alteration of the infringing of being a fruitless at· boxes, and to be justly liableto the tempt to evade the patent. A more careful examination of the subject has led me to another cOriclusio:tl. ,I The first and,brpadest claim of t4e .:reissue is for substantially as specified, of a series of metallic door-frames and doors with a series Of wooden pigeon-holes, Whereby aseries!ot post· office boxes with a continuous metallic frontage is formed.", fla,4ntiff's frames are made with flanges ,t4,e, wliole wOQa'en front is covered with a metallic {iontjor, In the language of the spocifi¢ation, "when all the frames are in place, cOJ;ltinuous f;rollt. of tpe senes of boxes.." The defendantlg :(irst nrlrmgmg boxes were a serIes of:ceparate bemg So a cQntmuoU8 was formed., ,'A C,ontil;lUoUS metallic D;tean wlthout' cracks at the i whlCh should be lDserted at, sides()f to each sigeArpm, a patented lDve,ntlon.. the, Janguage of, the 'plam,tlfI's' expert" the metallic frontage is 't()be lb'ontiri UOTIS' to effect the 1he. suriage lctflscribed ill the ;?y one so practlCally contlDuous as to, substantIally effect: tliepurpose de-
by
'"',,
,t'
Theqpestl?n ;the' fa({t, ,opiuion that the deferlJant"s :;not practically 'itnoii of the sides, the metallic frontage would not cause security, but the wooden partitions or strips of wood would be an element of weakness. 'rhe continuity of the metallic frontage is substantially interrupted by the wooden strips which separate the boxes from each other, if the Yale boxes were separated in the manner of the new. Scovill boxes and W'ithout the metallic sheathing upon the front part of the
anAl am: of
'J)'
. ! l)
,
344
FE1>EBAL BEFOBTEB.
sides of the boxes, the value and security of the Yale box would be seriously impaired. The metallic casing or flange upon the outside of the sides of· the Scovill box has an office, viz., that of protection to the wood-work against 'outside attack, which the metallic ear upon the insid-e of the Yale box does not have. The motions are denied·
· l'
GOULD V. SPIOER
and others.
(fJ:rcuit PATENTJ II'OR
D. 'RhodsIBlantl. August 8, 188J;» ' V OlD, JrOl' VARIAKCB.
;Ihlllquity. .' Before GRAY,
'.
,i"
Thomas W., Olarke, for complainant. BenjaminF. Thu1-stOrt, for GRAY and .. . Justice. In the original patent the only invention claimed or described, or appeari,ng upoIiits fiice'tohave been intended to be claimed or described, is an arrangement of grate-bats, with projections on the under side of each end, iti ,combination with two rotary cams, in contact wi'th The reissue, so far as it relates to the seven new introduced therein, is void, because of it,S varillnce from the originsJpatent; and it is unnecessary to consider the other grave objections to the validity of the reissue, founded on the lapse of .time before it was applied for. But the validity of the claim made patent, and distinctly repeated in the reissue, is not affected. ' The result is, that: the first,demurrer, which goes to the whole bill, must be overruled, and the second denl'urrer, filed in aocordance with and, limited to that part of the bill the thirty-second. rule in which sets forth the invalid chtiIris,must be sustained, and the case stand for replication and proofs upon the first olaim.