HAKE V.BRO\f;N.
783
_,ell-oes included in the. terms" wearing apparel." See the following dtecisipns supporting and illustrating the coustructiopadopted: . Oqte8 v. Bank, 100 U. S. 239, 244; Bend v. Hoyt,13 Pet. 268,270-272;' Adams v. Bancroft, 3 Sum. 384, 386; Reiche v. Smythe, 13 Wall. 162. Chinese have been imported formore tpan 20 it is understood tllat during all the time .and for years after the passage of the act in question, they have been classified as manufactures of silk and cotton vely. A definition adopted an<,l acted upon for a long time should .not be regarded as changed by a sQ,b!lequent act ofcongress,. unless th,e intention to change is, clearly, manifest. Reiche·v. Smythe, 13 Wall. 162; IJe Fore$t, v" Lawrence, 13 How. 274. See, also, Edward8 v. Darby, 12 Wheat, 210; Hahn v. U. S., 107 U. S. 402, 406, Sup. Ct. Rep. 494; U. S. v. Pugh, 99 U. S. 269; Robertson v. Downing,l27 U. S. 608, 613, -8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1328, and cases therein cited. I the classification should be made, and ;duties levied nnder the several .provisions cited .as 'eWmed by the importer. Let there I;>e findings and judgment accord.ingly. ,; ;.
HAKE". BROWN
et al. . · J '
{(JVrcuit Court. B. D. New York. March:5,.1Bell.) , "
:1;PATlllWTS FOR
-S.
. ,Letteri(patent No. 219A64, September 9,1879. to Philip Hake, descl'ibtra methOd of making bevel--edged cards, and ornamenting the edges by 'Piling them: Qbliquely so th:at the slope ,!f the J?,:ck corresponds to the fleyel, ..9P!:?pressing them to hold tl).em posItIon, beveling, Qrnament!hg, andJinuhmg the whole pack on theslopmg edge, and successively treatmgthe other sides and ends in the same manner. B.eveling in packs was not new, butarobliquely, and treating one side or end till all ,were complete, did not appear to have been previously Packs can be"thus grooved, embossed, or ornamented so as to present beveled designs,whMh cQuldnot be produced by treating the cards separately; and the'method ·of making bevel-edged cards of any design is greatly facilitated; Held, that such method of treating the cards is novel arid patentable, and claim 1, which is for such me.thod. is valid. . . .. . '
CA1U>S-fRo_·
,8: SAME--VALIDITY-DISOLArMER ON TRIAL.
.. But, 8S bevel-edged cards were old, and as those made by the process dif. .fered from others in no way unless in design, Claim 2 of the patent, which is . for a c9.rd treated in the rnanner described, is invalid. . . Though under Rev. f!t. U. S. § 4920; subd. 4, the. patent might be held void . because it covers a material thing not invented by the patentee, yet, under sectiOn 4922, as no willful default or intent· to defraud or mislead appears, .complainant, in a suit for infringement, which is established, may have a decree, : witho\lt costs, on filing a disclaimer of the.second claim.
In Equity. , , Suit by Philip Hake against George F. Brown and another, Jqr.the .infringement of a ,Arthur.". fororator. .,Walter D. Ednwnda, for. defendants_
1l'EDERAL REPORTER,
vol. 87.
WHEELER,J. This cause rests upon patent 219,464, dated September 9,187'9, and granted to the orator for an "improvement in visiting cards." The patent describes a method of making bevel-edged cards, and of ornamentinl/; the edges, by piling obliquely, first. so that the slope of the pal.lk will correspond with the desired bevel, compressing them to hold them in that" position, beveling and ornamenting and finishing the whole pack on the sloping edge; which will bevel, ornament, and finish that edge of each separate card by each operation, and of suc. cessively treating the other sides and ends of the pack in the same manner, by which means the whole pack is treated as readily as one card. The first claim is for the method of treating cards in this manner, and the second is for a card so treated. The defenses are want of novelty, want of patentability, and lack of proof of infringement. Aqcording to the evidence, bevel-edged cards were not new at the date of the orator's invention; neither was beveling in packs neWj but arranging cards in oblique packs, and treating one side or end till all the cards were complete on that side or end, as if they were one card, and treating the other side and ends successively in the same manner, does not appear by the requsite measure of proof to have been known before. By this process the packs can be grooved or embossed and ornamented in a manner to present beveled designs upon the edges of such cards, which could not be produced by treating cards separately, and the makinl/; of bevel-edged cards oiany design is greatly facilitated. This method seems to be ingenious and useful. Such an arrangement of mechanical operattons, that produces a new and useful result, or an old result in an easier or better ll}anner, is understood to be patentable. Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U. S. 789j Telephone CaSe8, 126 U. S. I, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 778. The first claim of the patent, therefore, appears to be good and valid for the method described. There is nothing new about the bevel-edged cards produced by this process, except that they are made in this way. They do not differ from those made in any other way, unless they do in design. The process does not inhere· to the product, so that it differs from any like product made in any other way, as was the case with Cummings's in vention of rubber plates and teeth, in Smith v. Vulcanite Co., 93 U. S. 486j or the driven well, in Eame8 v. Andrews, 122 U. S. 40, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1073. The product itself here is old in the sense of the patent law, and there can be no patent for it, although produced in this new way. v. Du Bois, 8 Fed. Rep.. 710, 9 Fed. Rep. 38; McCloskey v. Hamill, 15 red. Rep. 750. The second claim oithis patent, therefore, appears to be invalid. The plaintiff's evidence tends directly to show that the defendants use this proceSSj and the defendants do not, in testimony, deny that they do, nor dispute or meet this testimony. Upon this state of the evidence the'infririgement is found as a fact to exist of the first claim. The patent might be held to be invalid on account of its covering the product, of which the patentee is not the inventor, and which is a material and substantial part of the thing patented. Rev. St. § 4920, subd. 4.
BREWSTER tJ. SHULER.
785
But when such material or substantial part has been claimed through inadvertence, accident, or mistake, without any willful default or intent to defraud or mislead the public, a recovery may be had for the infringement of any part which is bona fide the inventor's own, that is a material and substantial part of the thing patented, and definitely distinguishable from the part claimed without right; but without costs, unless a I disclaimer is filed before suit brought. Section 4922. The benefits of the provisions of this section are to be denied if the entry of a disclaimer has been unreasonably neglected or delayed, but waiting to take the judgment ofa court is allowable. Burdettv. Esley, 15 Blatehf.349, 19 Blatchf. 1,3 Fed. Rep. 566. No such willful default or intent to defrauo or mislead appears, or is claimed to exist, thus far in this case. The orator, therefore, appears to be entitled to file a disclaimer of the second claim now, and thereupon to have a decree as to the first claim without costs. Upon the tiling of a duly-attested copy from the patent office of a d,is.second claim, let a decree be entered, that the first claim is valid, and for,an injullction and account accordingly, but without costs.
BREWSTER
et al.
'lJ. SHULER.
tdb-wit 1.
Court, N. D. New York. February 23, 1889
PATENTS. FOR INVENTIONB-REISSUE-ENJ,ARGEHENT OF CLAm.
In the original patent of May 27,1873, to Thomas H Wood. foran improve· ment in carriage springs, the invention WIlS stated to have for its object to combine in a wagon supported on single transverse springs and side-bars the advantage of elasticity, double elliptic transverse springs, and of the deep s6\;· ting of the body previously obtained by using single springs. The claim was for a frame consisting of longitudinal side-bars, downwardly bowed springs. and upwardly bowed middle springs, constructed, arranged, and applied as and for the' purpose described. The reissued letters patent granted August 18, 1874, state that the object is to improve the manner of connecting the bodies of light carriages with the side-bars whereby they are supported. and that the invention consists in interposing a pair of semi-elliptic springs between the side-bars and wagon body, The claim is for the semi-elliptic springsJnterposed between the side-bars and the wagon body. 1111 combined substantially as specified. Held, that the original being for a combinat.ion of half springs with other half springs in reverse, and the reissue being for a combination which omits the half springs in reverse, the reissue is void. SAME.
2. S.
The reissue is void also because there is no defective or insufficient specifl· cation and no inadvertent mistake in the statement of the claim of the original. SAME-ANTICIPATION.
Semi-elliJltic scroll-ended spriugs having been previously interposed be· tween the s\de-bars and the body of the Robert Pierce buggy, and there being nothing to indicate that a spring other .than one a scroll end was an elero'ent of the claim, the patent is void for prior pubhc use, though the drawings show springs without scroll ends.
In Equity. Bill to restrain the infringement ot a patent. B. F. Thurston and Livingston Gifford, for complainants. v.37F.no.14-50