SARGENT ,. JENKINS.
685
SARGENT
et ale
11. JENKINS
PATENTS FOR INvENTIONS-PATENTABILITY-ANTICIPATION-WAsn-BoARD PROTECTORS.
.
(Circuit Oourt, N. D. New York. March 21, 1889.)
Letters patent No. 228.888, January 6.1880, to John :M. Gorham. describe a protector for wash·boards, which yields to pressure and returns to its nor· mal position automatically when the pressure is removed; the patentee stating that he is not to be confined to any particular form of device. Held not anUcipated by the protector of the Frike patent, which has not such yielding or resilient function. . .
In Equity. On motion for preliminary injunction. Bill by Sargent and others against J ankins and others. torlilstrajn the infringementofletters patent No. 223,338, to Joan Gorham, January 6, 1880.. . William O. Witter and George H. Ohri8ty, for complainants·. E. N. Dickersm and J. Walter Douglass, for defendants· ·WALLACE, J. The wash-boards which the defendants are manufacturing embody the invention specified in the first and second claims of the patent to Gorham; and the motion for a preliminary injunction should be granted, unless there is a serious question of the novelty of the subjectmatter of those claims. The essential feature of the wash-board of those claims· is a protector (to shield the operator from getting wet) which yields to pressure, and returnno its normal position automatically when the pressure is removed.. In the second claim the spring is the aevice which gives the elastic or resilient quality to the protector; but the patentee states that he is not to be confined to any specific form of device, .and consequently the first claim ,should be interpreted broadly to include any wash-board having a protector, whether with or without a spTing, which is so constructed as to bend or yield to pressure, and return when the pressure is removed. If the patent to Frike describes a wash-board having a pretector that possesses this function, and yields to pressure, and returns automatically on its pivot by gravity, the first claim is' anticipated; and, as the substitution of the spring for the weight would not iJ1Volve invention, the second claim would also be invalid. The protector of the Frike patent. however, is not of that character. There is no suggestion in the specification that it is to return to its position by gravity, or by any instrumentality except: by the hand of the operator. It is de.signed exclusively for a wash-board having a double face, and is constructed so as to afford a broad surface to support the operator (and protect him from getting wet) until he desires to Use the other side of the wash-board; when, by tilting it over, he can transfer it for use upon that side. It belongs to the second class of protectors referred to in Gor.ham's patent as not embodyinghls invention. The Frike patent was before the supreme court in the suit upon the complainants' patent agaipst Burgess. (9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 220,) and ia referred to in theopin-
586
vol. 38.
ion. In the opinion the court say that but for the yielding or resilient ,be questionable whether his function of Gorham's patent would be valid. It is fairly to be assumed that the supreme court did not consiq.er the Frike patent an anticipation of either of the claims of the Gorham patent, and that the court were of the opinion. that the ptttent to Gorham was a valid ,The motion for an injunction is .
SINGER
MANUF'G
Co.
11.
Wn..80N SEWING-MAC?HII:iECO. et ale .March .is, 1889.) OF PATENT.
(Oircuieo.0urt, Equity; ,'Will take
Q""
cpgnizance' Qf a suit' cQmmenced ,4pril,8d for the hlfringe· ment of a patent which will expire August 28th following, as under the equity rules of the federal courts t4ere illll\llPl.e time between tho.!llil,dates to answer, take proofs, and bring the cas(l'to tUlnal hearing. . ' ,'
2. SAME-P ATENTAlBILITy..,.-ANTICWATION.....sHUTTLE·QARl'tHll;as. . The specification in letters patent No. 57,585, August 28, 1866, to John Sha!a shuttle-carrier o.nth.e. end of . a IlOckIDg'shtdCso:geared &s :to gin It an oscillatorymotIPn.J,n the upper perl,pbery clurier, is arltceSll of suitable size to receive the shuttle',' .and's gate or lid is hinge'd',to the side of 'tbe .catrier so as when shut , to'incl08ethe shuttle, 8nd to'alto'\V'its removal when open. the gate being held position br IIp)'ing :l!.ooks. The claim is for the shuttle-caras with a socket near ,its rim fortpe shutrier, tle; anld- a hlnglid gate, which confines the shuttle, and covers the bobbin, the witli' 8u1t8blemeans for locking and Prior ,p.a,ten,t,; ,'.'pP. w,ell. an. ,:0.aCi.llatJ,n.,g... ..q.tpe-h.older, and Qt.he.,r.,s a shuttle.-h{llder . witlJ, h4 or gate, but none showed the combination; arid complainant's ex· ,. ); peJit'testfmony",vas that none Of them showed theShallimberger device,' De· ,; expert testimony. Held no anticipation. ,
.' , Ris but,a to hinge the gate to an adiQi)ling part of the .' , machine hijltead' of to: the carii,er or rim, and such change is insufficient to . avoid a charge' ofinfrin,gemeilt. . , j .
, ' . '
In Equjty." Bill by the
against the William G..jVilson.
Offield 4c'l'oWWt.for,complaina.nt. 'J!1uJchf!/r for defendants· · : \ j; .',
BLODGE'F.l',. ,;)\ This is a bill: to restrain the alleged infringement of pa.tentN,<>".6.7 ,LS85 , granted 28; 1866, to John ,Shallenberger, for an ,"hnprowement in shuttle-cal,'riers' for now owned .by conlplainant through mesne' ltSsignments,and for an accounting. in the specifications, consists of a circularThe invention, ,sbapedshuttle.carrier, mountectupon.the end ora rocking shaft so geared I as:,to ghlean motion to .the ,shut,tle-carrier. . A recess is formed in the, ,upPet';periphery of the ·Q!ir.riEtl,'(of suitable size.and shape to rei cei"e thershuttle,.,and a gateol',lidcis:hi.nged to thesideof.the so ,las t whenshli1i., to inclo5e tbeshuttle in-itsteces5, and by swinging back ,thl( gaw toi allow ,of,