182
FEDE.RAL REPORTER.
40, (Gil. 21,), arose upon avery similar state of affairs, and is very closely in point, and the conclusions reached by that court are in accord with the views above expressed. The 'to quash the writ will be sustained, and judgment accordingly.
DYER
and another v. NATIONAL HOD ELEVATING Co. Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. April 28,1885.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-SCOPE OF INvEN'rroN:
A patent for a mere improvement in the department of mechanics to which it belongs, must be limited to the arrangement of the device Claimed as new, and cannot be se expanded as to embrace different substituted devices that perform some of the functions of the patent, or produce the same general effect.
In Equity. MoKENNAN, J. As the patent in this case is for an improvement merely in the department of mechanics to which it pertains, it must be limited in its scope to the "arrangement" of devices described and claimed in it as new; and it cannot be expanded to apply to substituted devices, different in character and dissimilar in form, merely because they perform some of the intended funotions of the patented devices, or because the same general result is effectuated by both. The second claim of the patent-which is the only one necessary to be considered-is for the "arrangement of the ropes or oables, m, m, clamp-bolts, i, i, and cross-bars, J, J, snbstantially as and for the purposes set forth." This "arrangement," as described, provides for the use of two cross-bars, to be attached to the ropes or cables at each end by means of clamp-bolts, which pass through the cross-bars, and en· cirole the cables, and thus hold the bars in place by pressure npon the cables, by relaxing which pressure the oross-bars may be moved up or down, and any desired adjustment in length of the oables be secured. In the upper cross-bar are V-shaped notches for holding hods filled with brioks or mortar, which are prevented from tilting by the lower cross-bar, against which the handles of the hod rest. In this "arrangement" it is obvious that notches capable of holding clampbolts in place by compression. clamp-bolts, and two cross-bars. are essential constituents. In the hoisting apparatus made and nsed by defendant, a cable of different material and form, and without the essential capabilities of the cable described in the patent, is employed; and in no sense, except that of carrying the weight to be lifted, can it be regarded as an equivalent of the latter. It is made of iron, with links of a peculiar Joshua PuseYJ for complainant. Charles Rowson, contra.
UNDERWOOD V. WARREN.
183
form, so that it is altogether unadapted to the application of clampbolts, the use of which is indispensable to the adjustability of the cable. Hence it lacks an essential feature of the patented "arrangement." Besides this, the cross.bar, which sustains the hods, is at· tached: to the cable by a depression in one of the links, in which it rests, and is held by a simple screw passing through the cross· bar and the cable link. And, finally, but one cross-bar is used, in which are Vshaped notches to hold the hods, which are prevented from tilting by bars {lrojected from each side of the V. With these notable differences in form and function, these devices cannot be identified by any rule of equivalency, and hence we cannot adjudge the defendant guilty of infringement. The bill is dismissed, with costs.
UNDERWOOD tI.
and another.1
(Gircuit Gourt, E, D. Mi880un June 10,1885.) PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-TRACK·DRILLS.
The combination covered by letters patent No. 205,927, issued to F. J. Un. derwood for an improvement in railroad. track drills, is not infringed by the use oj the device described in letters patent No. 186,225, by the addition of a vertical screw with a thumb-piece, for the purpose of holding t1le sliding block in position.
In Equity. G. M. Stewart and Britton A. Hill, for complainant: Parkinson d; Parkinson, for defendants. TREAT, J., (orally.) The case of Underwood v. Wa1'1'en and March is a suit for infringement of a patent. Most of the elements of this case have been heretofore considered, and the views of the court will be found in 20 FED. REP. 697. All that is necessary to determine the question now presented can be expressed in a very few words. 'I'he Underwood patent, No. 205,927, dated July 9,1878, is a combination patent. The defendants use the Belan patent, of which they are the proprietors, which patent was issued November 18, 1876, Il,umbered 186,225. Both of these patents are for ratchet· drills in connection with rails, or more especi. ally fish-plates on mils. The Belan patent consisted of two parallel bars, with clamps extending therefrom to hold them in position, and clamped to the railroad bar; and in order to operate the drill there was a movable block between the bard, with a horizontal screw running through it at the particular point where it was desired to bore the railroad bar. By screwing up horizontally the boring appamtus, 1
Reported by Benj. F. Rex, Esq., of the St. Louis bar.