,8S0
FEDERAL REPOn'rER.
,10, .assigneesd,elayed without oause the settlement of the estate, '4ndpei'mitted its securities to depreciate and to outlaw. Almost every isectionof the bal1kruptlaw, applicable to assignees, ha.s been disregarded or direcUyviolated,' arid all this without a word 6£ explanation. It is conceded by all that -the deceased assignees were men of high standing in the community in, which they resided, and no bad .faith is or can be imputed to them. Their lips are closed. There may be some explanation of their corrduct,-and all possible opportunity should be given to explain what upon the papers now submitted seems to be a case of un· ,precedented andunpa-rdollable neglect. An order commissions will not be made until a fuU opportunity has been accorded the representatives Of the deceased assignees to be heard upon that issue. The oourt may feel constrained reluctantly to make the order, but it is hoped that the necessity therefor may be averted. Bearing in mind the rules above referred to, it is thought that the register can have no difficulty in correctly stating the account.
THOMPSON' and
others
tI. DERBY
and otherS.
(Oircuit Oowrt, D. Mru,aclw"tt8.
December 8, 1887.)
t. t.
PATENTS FOR INVENTION$-.!.NTICIPATIoN-COm3UfED CHAm AND OABBYAGB.
Letters patent No. 22{928. granted to Joseph W. Kenna for imRrovements in child's combined chair and carriage; are not anticipated by ear ier patents, " although'limited in scope by them. CRAm AND CAlUUA.GE.
SA.ME......
Cbairsmade undertbe two Chichester patents, respectively numbered 259,868 and 260,843, are infringements upon tbe Kenna No. 224,923. The chairs made under the Parker patent, No. 817,668. do not infringe.
In Equity. Jame8 E.Maynadier,for complainants. Thorruis H. Dodge, for defendants.
COLT,J. This is a suit for an injunction, account, and damages, 'based upon letters patent No. 224,923, dated February 24, 1880, granted t8 Joseph W.Kenna for improvements in a combined child's chair and carriage. The specification says: "My invention relates to 3n article of furniture which. by simple adjustDlent of the several parts. may be converted from a nursery chair to a child's carriage. and 'alee ve1·sa. so that it may be used for either a child's high chair or a carriage, as may be; dl'!sired. The invention consists in the manner of connecting tbe chair to its supporting frame and supporting it, therein, and _Iso in spepial devices and combinations of devices." The :first claim of the patent covers some of the. special ,devices described in the specification. The second claim is more general ,in its chart!octer, is relied upon in this sqit. It reads as follows:
THOMPSON.V. DERBY.
831
"The frame; A, in com.binatio:n with bail, E, chair-frame, :a, pivoted at its lower front corners to the frame, A, and the yielding rest or support, F, substantially as described." ,. . . : ' ·.. , J ,
F is alsp.termed in the specification a "Spring Catch," and it is. manifestthat this is a more correct term than yielding rest. It is used t(} hold the bail, E, in position when.the chair is used as a high chair. The Kenna chair is an improvement'Qn,whatia called the "Pearl Chair," in that the supporting frame is hinged to the front legs of the chair, instead, of being hinged directly to the chair seat. The plaintiffs contend that three chairs made and sold by the defendants infringe the second claim of the Kenna patent. The first of these alleged infringing chairs is found described in the Chichester patent No. 259,368, dated June 13, 1882; the second in the Chichester patent No. 260,843, dated July 11, 1882, and the third in the Parker patent, No. 317,668, dated May 12, 1885. With respect to the Kenna patent, it is urged thaI it must receive a narrow construction in view of what took place in the patent-office upon the application for the patent, and in view o£ the prior state of the art. The office rejected the broad claim made by Kenna to the combination. of the supporting frame, chair-frame pivoted thereon, and bail, on the ground that sucb combination was !3hown in the prior Pearl chair; and Kenna acquiesced in the decision of the examiner, and directed the claim to be erased from his application. But as to the claim now sued uI>0n, it is found in}he and it was allowed, so far asappears, without question, and I am of opinion that it isa valid claim for a combination. Each of the elements may be old, but they were never combined together before, and they produced a new and improved result. .Many prior patents for combination chairs have been introduced in evidence, but nowhere do we find described the Kenna chair, or all the features of the' Kenna chair, covered by the second claim of the patent. Undoubtedly the Caulier patent, and the Patten patent, and other prior patents, together with the Pearl chair, tend to limit the scope of the Kenna invention, but I do not think. any of them are anticipations of that invention. The question of infringement remains. As to defendants' chairs, mad6 under the two Chichester patents, it seems tome clear that they use aU the elements described in the second claim of the Kenna patent. In the Chichester chairs there are found the supporting frame, A, the bail, E, the chair frame,B, pivoted at its lower front corners to the frame, A, and the spring catch or support, F, or what may fairly be considered their equivalents. With respect to the Parker chai.r, I find no infringement. There is notfound in the Parker chair either the bail or spring catch described in the Kenna patent. The bail is not used for the purpose of supportingthe chair,but only for the purpose of pushing when the chair is converted into a carriage, nor is the catch of the Kenna patent present in the Parker chair. Upon the:evidence the plaintiffs contend that the Kenna invention antedatesthei iFearl chair, but I find the contrary to be the fact. .The
832
FEDERALBEPORTER.
effort of the defendantS to show that L. A. Chichester invented the Kerma chair is not sbstained by sufficient proof.) Nor .can I agree with defendants that the special devices, such as the slotted bars which are made the subject-matter of the first claim of the Kenna patent, Il1ust by implication be incorporated into the second claim. My conclusion is that defendants' chairs made under the Chichester patents infringe the Kenna patent, and that defendants' chairs made under the Parker patentdonot infringe, and a decree may be drawn accordingly· .Decree for complainants.
and others v. «(}j'rcuit Oourt, 8. D. New York.
HOHENSTEIN.
December 2, 1887.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMEN'l'-INJUNCTION. BS
Letters patent for a shade or globe holder for candles which should descend the candle burned down, werll applied for by Daniel Leary. A part of his claims were rejected BS already covered by British patents, whereupon he, on April 25, 1882. obtained a patent ou an amended claim in which the . modification consisted of two upper rings, which he claimed rendered the hold, of the shade upon the candle more secure. Held, that the improvement did not exhibit sufficient mechanical skill or ingenuity to warrant the issuance of a preliminary injunction.
H. Aplington, for plaintiffs. Goepel & Raegener, for defendant. LACOMBE, J. This is an application for a preliminary injunction to restrain the defendant from making, selling, or using shade or globe holders for candles, described and claimed in letters patent No. 257,027, granted to the plaintiff on April 25, 1882. The shade-holders factured respectively by plaintiffs and defendant consist of a light metal ring about three-quarters of an inch in width, with a flange bent inward from its. upper edge intended to fit over the top of a candle, and connected by two strips of metal with a heavy ring intended to encircle the candle about three-quarters of au inch below the upper ring or cap. The strips of metal which connect the ring and cap are continued upwards, flaring outwards, and supporting a larger ring at a proper elevation above the candle, upon which upper ring the shade is to be placed. The shadeholder is supposed to descend as the material of the candle is consumed, thus maintaining the shade always at the same elevation above the ignited wick. From the file wrapper and contents, certified copies of which are presented by the defendant, it appears that in his original application plaintiff claimed substantially all the meritorious features of this apparatus. A paTt of his claims, however, were rejected as being covered byexisting English patents. Thereupon plaintiff'rnodified his claim to the one