MALTBY.,. GRAHAM.
689
aLly containing robber. caoutchouc, gutta-perella, or some analogous material, as hereinafter more fully set forth amI claimed. In carrying out my invention I take an ordinary rubber cloth, preferably gossamer rubber cloth, or any fabric composeti wholly or in part of rubber, and print or stamp its finished surface or surfaces wiLh an ink or compound of a different color or shade from the body of the goods by means of engraved rollers. blocks, types, dies. or in any other suitable manner. I deem it preferable, however, to use rollers. one or more being employed, according to the number of colors to be applied, and the cloth passed in cuts through the printing-machine after the manuel' of printing calico and similar goods." The prior Dunbar & Lothrop patent of December 14,1875, exhibits a rubber cloth, having on its surface ornamental designs or figures. The patent issued to and others, March 30, 1880, was for an improvement in water-proof fabrics, and the specification states that the invention consists of a light, thin, woven fabric, covered with a waterproofiugof rubber composition, printed with ornamental colors and figures to resemble ordinary dress or similar goods. The composition is spread upon the cloth in the manner well known in the art, and fornls a basis for receiving the colors, and holding them in sharp, clear lines, without running or blurring, so as to make well-defined and ornamental figures. On this prepared surface there is printed, in colors suited thereto, such figures and shades as may be desired. From these two patents it is manifest that the printing of ornamental designs upon rubber cloth was old at the date of the Aldrich invention. If the patent can be sustained it must be on the ground that Aldrich was the first to print or stamp rubber cloth with an ink or compound containing rubber, gutta-percha, or sdine analogous material. In his specification he states that he does not claim the ink or printing compound, as he proposes to make it the subject'matter of another patent. Bearing in mind the prior state of the art, I do not think this patent can be sustained. The claims of the patent are not for an improved mechanism, but for an improved article of manufacture, which consists in printing ornamental figures upon a rubber fabric with a colored ink composed in part of rubber. Rubber cloth had previously been ornamented by printing upon it with one kind of ink, and in my opinion it cannot be said to constitute invention to print upon it with another kind of ink. The bill should be dismissed.
MALTBY
v.
GRAHAM
et al. February 7, 1889.)
(Oircuit Oourt, 8. D. New York.
1.
PATENTS FOR bt"VENTJONS-PATENTABILITy-NAIL-ExTRACTOR.
Reissued letters patent No. 5,502. J uIY29, 1878. to George J. eapeweJl. describe a movable jaw worked by a long, bollow arm. in which is a heavy rammer against another jaw, shaped for a fulcrum. The jaws are driven by the rammer into the wood until they grasp the nail-head. The arm. which may be lengthened by drawing out the rammer, acts as a lever over the fulcrum, which tightens the grip. A nail-extractor haVing similar jaws v.o7F.no.13-4.4 Ii nail-extractor baving
.REPQRTERI
vol. 87.
described in 'etters \latent No. 107,121, September 6,1870. to George C. Taft. A similar rammer In an arm Was described in .letters patent No. 54.852, May 22, 1866, for driving liD. and in letters patent No. 81,855. September 1,1868, to John Willard, for driving a which could be used as a nail-extractor. Held, that the combination of elements in the Capewell patent being new, it was patentable. '
S.
SAME-REISSUE-ExTENT OF CLAIM'.
The claim of the reissue, which is for a nail-extractor provided with a movable jaw and fulcrum, in combination with a percussive device, constructed alld operatin/l; as described. is no broader than the claims of the original. which were for the combination of a and a hollow stem provided with claws for extracting nails. substantially as described, and for ,he combination of the hollQW !,Item. stationary lind pivoted claws, fulcrum, fulcrum-spring, and sliding ramlUer. all operating substantially as described. There was therefore no abandonment in accepting the original; and. the reissue having been applied for within a few months, excuses for it are not necessary.
In Equity. , by Douglass F. John H. Grahltm and William A. Grahll-m for the infringement of patent. For opinion on motion for prellm,inary. injunction,see 35 fed. Rep. 206. . . ' ,Ji'tq,ncis Forpes, forcom plainant. ' . . . H. Kni{}ht and Harry E. Kni{}ht, for defendants. WHEELER, J. This suit is brought upon reissued letters patent No· .5,502, dated July 29, 1873; and granted to George J.Capewell for an improvement in nail-extractors. The defenses relied upon at the hearing are want of patf'ntable novelty, abandonment in accepting the originalpatent l and want of foundation for the reissue. The nail-extractor of this patent has a movable jaw, working by a long, hollow arm, in which is a heavy rammer, against another jaw, shaped fulcrum. In use the jaws are placed over the nail.head, and driven by the rammer into .the wood around the nail until they. will grasp the head-; then, by motion of the atm, which maybe lengthened by drawing out the rammer, as a lever (),ver the fulcrum, which tightens the grip, thenl1il is drawn without much bending.· A nail-extractor with similarjaws, one acting as a fulcrum, an? having an atm fora lever, was patented to George O. Taft in letters patent No.l()7,121, dated September 6,1870; and a $iDiilar rammer in an arm was described in letters patent No. 54,852, dated May 22,1866, for driving an ice-pick, and in letters patent No. 81,855, dated September 1,1868, and granted to John Willard, for driving a box.opener, which could he used as a nail-extractor. Counsel forthe defendants claim that uniting this device to jaws Taft's nail-extractor was a mere aggregation of parts, not forming a patentable combination. This assumes that these parts do not work together to 'accomplish any result in a new way. But this assumption is not well-founded in fact. When brought togeth,erandarranged as was done by Capewell, they made a different machine for pulling nails from any that had exfstedbefore, ll,nd aJ+ the parts of.itlvorked together to take hold ofanddmw nails in a manner different ftom that of any machine before. This seems to amount to a new coUlbiilatiori and arrangement of parts constitilting an invention of
NORTON 'OOOlt CltECK &
CO. tI. HALL.
691
a
combination. 'Loom Co. v. HiiJgins, 105 U. S. 580. Capewell made four claims in his application for the original patent. These were reduced on adverse references and rulings to two. One was for the combination of a rammer and a hollow stem provided with claws for extracting nails, substantially as shown and described; the other was for the combination of the hollow stem, stationary claw, pivoted claw; fulcrum, -fulcrum-spring, and sliding rammer, all operating substantially as described. In the reissue the claim is for a nail-extractor provided with '8 movable jaw and fulcrum, in combination with a percussive device, constructed and operating substantially as described. The specification of the reissue is substantially the same as that of the original, and the claims of both are for devices and operations of devices described. The names for devices in each must signify the same things. The percussive device ofthe claim in the reissue is the one described, and is the hollow stem and rammer of each of the claims of the original. The movable jaw and fulcrum of the reissue are the claws and fulcrum, including the spring, of the second claim of the original, and the claws of the first. The claims of the reissue do not appear to go outside of or beyond the original in any respect. The reissue, therefore, covers nothing which was left out of the original, and consequently nothing which was abandoned in acceptinRthe original. No reason is shown for the reissue; but it was applied for within 11 few months, andwas no broader than the original. Under thefle circumstances excuses for the reissue do not appear to be necessary. Eames v. Andrews, 122 U. S.40, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1073. These views accord with what are understood to have been· those of Judge SHIPMAN in Maltby v. COnverse,! and of Judge W,ALLACE in Maltbyv. Tool 0>.,1 upon this same patent. Let there be a decree for a perpetual injunction and an account, a<:cording to the prayer of the bill. .
NORTON DOOR CHECK
&
SPltING Co. t1. HALL
et al.
Oourt, D. lrfaa8aehu8etta.
February 5,1889.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTJONB-ImINGEMENT-PREUMINARY INJUNCTION.
Letters patent No. 144.926, November 25.1873. to F. H. Richards for an improvement in door-springs. describe a cylinder in which isfitt.ed a piston. and at the end of which is. a screw having a longitudinal groove ofvllorYing.area. 'l'hepressure of the piston compresse.s the air in the cylinder. and 'partially checks the motion imparted to the door by a. spring. but not entirely; owing to the slow escape of the air through the groove. The escape of tl.ir ie regulated ,by adjusting the screw. Defendant's device conei,sts of a cylinder and adjusta1?le valve at its end. and apieton. A device prior to that of Richof a tube ontbe door inwbich was a piston.' A hole at the eild of: the tube was covered. but not closely, by a valve resting on the. end of a of the vent being regulated by the s.crew., A weight on the piston,w&8auspended fro lll a cord Which passed over a sheave to the lintel to