ELECTRIC GAB-LIGHTING 00. ft. BOSTON ET,ECTBIC 00.
455
drawings of these patents, without the help of exhibits embodying the inventions described in them, no one of them contains the Stetson lifting apparatus, or anything resembling it. Some of the parts of the combinatiQn appear in all the patents, but the sliding upper disk, and the side-wires supported on guides, are not to be found in anyone of them. So far as these patents are concerned, the Stetson invention is certainly new. The defendants' lantern differs from the plaintiffs' only in the following particulars: In the former the side-wires are hooked into the lower perforated plate, instead of being wound round or under it; and, in place of guides, they are' supported laterally by being bent partly round the side-tubes. The spring connecting the upper plate to the globe is also somewhat different in form from that showed in the drawings of the patent.' In all other respects it is an exact oounterpart. These differences are evidently variations in form only, and not in substance. They are mechanical equivalents for the corresponding parts in the Stetson lantern, and performtne SRme functions, in substantially the saIDe way. They to save the defendants' lantern from being an infringement of the.first and sooond:,claims ofiha plaintiffs' patent. Decree for the plaintiffs. '.
ELECTRIC GAS-LIGHTING
Co.
'II. BOSTON
ELEcTmc Co.
(OWlYUit OQurt, D. J[(u8ach'UllettB. December 24,1886.)
1.
PATENTS FOR INvENTIONS-REISSUE LIGHTING STREET LA"M1'S.
No.
9,743-.ELECTRICAL APPARATUS FOR
signee, dated January 7, 1881, for electrical apparatus for lighting street lamps, kekl void, because broader than those of the original patent. Electric GaBlighU1l,g 00. V. TillotBon, 21 Fed. Rep. 568, and Sam6 v. smith &: Rhod,88 Eleetrie (/0.,
Claims 2 and 5 of reissued patent No.9,743, granted to Jacob P. Tirrell, as-
2.
as Fed. Rep. 195, followed.
SAME-1NFRINGEMENT. In ll. suit for infringement
of the above patent the plaintiff cla.imed: "In an apparatus for lighting gaB by electricity, in combinatIon with a circuit-breaker located at the gas burner. a lever adapted and arranged to open and close the stop-eock or valve of the burner, and carrying the circuit-breaker." In defendant's apparatus two armatures operate to open and close the gas valve, but there is no separate lever to open and close the valve and carrying the circuit breaker. Held, no infringement; the construction and mode of operation of the two devices being entirely different.
In Equity. E. P. Payson, for complainant. J. E. Abbott, fOJ; defendant. CoLT,J. Thisauit is brought on the Tirrell reissue patent, dated June, 7, 1881, and numbered 9,743. In Electrie Gaa-lighi,ing eo. v. 'l'illotson, 21 Fed. Rep. 568, and in Electric Gaa-ltighting Co. v. Smith & Rhodes Elect:ric
"FEDERAL
01:, 23:Fed. Rep. 1,95; Judge WHEELER held the second and fifth claims ofthn,reisslle to be void, on the ground that these claims were broader thrinthose of the original patent. I have carefully consfdered theseopinions, and, concnr im the'views therein expressed. The new evidence broughtfQrward by ()omplainaut in this case does llot tend to overthrow the conclusions of Judge WHEELER, because it is apparent, upon a parison of the original patent with the reissue, that these claims are void under':the,.tartthorityofMiller v. Bra88 CO., 104 U. S. 350, and subsequent caaes.:·' ' The only remaining question is whether defendant infringes claim 4 of the reissue, which is in substance the same as claim 2 of the original. The cIaimis as follows: "In an'apparatus for ligatIng gas ,by electricity. in combination with a at thegas.-burner, a lever adapted and to open and cloS,e,the stop-cock or valve.of the burp.er. and carrying the circuit-breaker, substantially as herein descrilJed." In defe.l;ldant's apparatus, which is made after the Crockett patent, bearing da.te July 17, 1883, t;he twoar.matm:esoperate to open and the gas-Yll1v6rbut there isJound no sep.arate lever toopen and close.the valve and carrying the, circuit-breaker such asJa qesOJ:ibed ill the Tirren patent. The defendant's device is so different in construction and mode of operation from that described in the fourth claim that it is clear there is no infringement. The bill must be dismissed, with costs.
v.
CUTTER TOWER Co.
(Oirwit Oourt, D. Massachusetts. December 23, 1886.) PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMENT-No. 16.812-EAsEL DESIGN.
In an llctionfor infringing patent No. 16,312, dated October 6. 1885, for a design for easels, the plaintiff's design consisted in the upright standards crossing at the upper ends, representing the stems and flowers of the cat-tail plant. ,Easelt' made of the nattlral cat.-tails thtlscrossingare old. In defendant's design, the st.'1ndards are not crossed. but held together by a band.Held, no infringement, since the plaintiff was not the first to use cat-tails, and defendant's design,did not infringe his specific device of crossing them.
In Equity. . C. H. Drew and W. B. l)v,r<J,nt, for complainant. C. C. Morgan and O. M. Shaw, for defendant. Before COLT and CARPENTER, JJ. J. This suit is brought upon letters patent No. 16,312, dated October 6,1885, granted to the.complainant for a design for easels. The leading feature of:the desigriconsists in the upright standards of the easel croi'sed near their upper ends, and representing the arid flowers of the eat-tail plant Or flag. The claim is as follows: COLT, J
