May 17. 1889.)

PATENTS FOB INVENTIONs-..,-INFRINGEMENT:-;-OVERSHOE .BUCKLE.

Claims 1,2. and Sof.letters patent No.S26,S57, to J..J. Unbehend. dated Sep. tember 15, 1885. afe for the tongue of a buckle for overshoes, hinged between two plates, and guards across the' Eidges of the plates in front and rear of the hinge-pin of the tongue. The invention was an improvement on Unbehend's prior patent, No.. 80/'i.410, Septembet 16. 1884. which was for a buckle a tongue hinged between the leaves of a double flexible plate bya cam-shaped hinge-pIn entering between the plates,' and having its bearings in transverse recess8sclosed in front; The improvement consisted. in the guards to retain the in place, and to prevent lateral displaCement of the plates in reference" to each other. In buckle the inside edges of the lower plate. are turned upward, and· form: flanges, in each. of which a notch is made. opening upwar;d. anll pivots of the tongue re.st in the. potches as their bearings. ' Hem. tb.at'the guards in the Unbehend buckle must be in addition to the hinging device" and, as there· are no guards in addition to the hinging device in defendant's buckle, there. is no infringement.

In Equity. Suit by Judson L. Thomson &.00. against the,Smith & Griggs Manufacturing' Company and another. George W. Hey and William E. Simonds, for plaintiffs. George E. Terry, for defendants.
SHIPMAN, ',T. This is·a bill in equity to restrain the defendants from the alleged infringement of letters patent No. 326,357, dated 'September 15; 1885; to Jacob J ·. Unbehend,for an improved spring-clasp or buckle for "Arctic" overshoes. The opinion upon the motion in this case for a preliminary injunction recited the first five claims of the patent. contained a description of the patented and the defendant's devices, stated wherein the patented device 'was an improvment upon that described in the patentee's earlier patent, and pointed .out what was thought to be a. radical difference between the buckles which' are the subject of thiS controversy. 32 Fed. Rep. 791. It will not be necessary to rel>ettUhedescriptive part of these details. Upon this hearing, the validity of the fourth and fifth claims was not urged. The sole question is that of infringement of the first three claims, aJ1dthe decision of the question rests upon, the construction which shall be 'placed upon them. . 'the first and broadest claim is in these words: "In a clasp, the tongue hlilged between two plates,· a'nd guards across the -edges of the said plates, in·front and rear of the hinge·pino1l the tongue. subas and for the ,PU,rPOll,ll set . The plaintiff contends that the only limitations to be placed upon the literal meaning of this language and of kindred language in the two other claims are that the two plates are to give spring action to the tongue, and that the hinge-pin is to be cam-shaped. Thus construed, or, in other words, if it is immaterial how the tongue is hinged between the two plates, whether in bearings like those of the patented buckle, or

THOMSON V.SMITE' & GRIGGS' MABUJl'!G CO.

603

whether the so-called guards are themselves the only bearings, the defendant's buckle is an infringement. . The: invention was an improvepatent, No. 305,410, dated September 16. 1884, ment upon which was for a buckle having a tongue hinged between the leaves of a double flexible plate by a cam-shaped hinge-pin entering plates; and having its bearings in transverse recesses closed in front. The samepatentee had also another patent, No. 336,769, dated February23, 1886, but which was applied for on May 26; 1885, before the application for the patent in suit, which was also for a buckle having a bearings in similar recesses between two superimposed plates. The improvement in the first three claims of patent No. 326,357 consisted in the addition of guards across the side edges of the,flexible portion of these plates to retain the hinge-pin in its proper bearings in the plates" and also to prevent lateral displacement of the plates in relation to each other. The specification says: "In order to prevent tpe hinge-pin, tn, from slipping out of the depressions or bearings, b, b, I arrange guards. r,'r,across the edges ofthefiexible portions of the platE's adjacent to the openings, a, a, and respectively in front and rear,of the hinge-pin, said guards being ,formed of lips," etc. invention, and from the language oithe speciFrom the history of fication, it is plain that the expression "the tongue hinged between two plates" means bya separate hinging device, which holds the tongue independently of the guards. The tongue ishinged"ifthere were no guards. The guards are in addition to the hinging devices, and are to protect and hold the tongue in its bearings. This 'Was the precise for which ,the first three claims of No. 326,357 were granted, and it is not important that Unbehendha,d previously wade a buckle in which the bearings for the tongue were formed in notches cut in the upturned edges of the bottom plate, with the tongue lying between the plates, for that form of buckle he discarded, because, in japanning, the japan flowed between the plates, and thereafter adopted the transverse closed recesses and the guards, and in the patent now, under consideration, described as his improvement, the guards which prevented the hinge-pin from slipping out of the recesses. The reason why, upon this construction, the defendant's buckle is not an infringement, is stated in the former opinion. In the complainant's buckle the hinging device must be separate from the guard. 'II\ the defendant's buckle the pin is hinged in notches, which are the only part upon which the hanging of the lever depends, and there are no guards in addition to the hinging devices. The bill is dismissed.

604

.FEDERAL REPORTER,

vol.

SMITH

THOMSON

et al.

May 6. 1889.)

.

(OirtJuit Oourt, N. D.Ner.tJ York.

PATENTS lI'OBlNvENTIONS..,..OVERSHOE CLASPS.

Letters patent Nos. 803.547 and 808.596, issued to Edward S. Smith Ang-st:s. 1884. for improvements in spring-clasps. used principally on arctic having a spring-seated holding-lever. which Is adapted to he thrown open or closed by means of the fingers. are void for lack of patentable novelty Prior to his improvements spring-clasps composed of a base-plate. spring. and swinging tongue were well-known to the art. and there Is no invention In hinging the tongue to the so-called spring-arms. instead of to the base-plate, or In substituting fiat bearings for round bearings.

In Equity. Bill for infringement of patents, filed by Edward S. Smith against Judson L. Thomson and John Hunter. Charles E. MitcheU and George E·. Terry, for complainant. George W. Hey, for defendants.

CoXE, J. This is an action.ofinfringement, based upon two letters patent granted to the complainant August 12, 1884, for improvements in spring-clasps, and numbered, respectively, 303,547 and 303,596. The applications were filed April 2.5, 1884. The fifth claim of 303,547 is the only one alleged to be infringed. It is as follows: "(5) In a spring-clasp, the combination with the base-plate of spring-arms, S, S, f()rmed and attached separately to said plate, substantially as described." The invention relates to that class of spring-clasps which are used principallyon arctic overshoes, and "which are provided with a spring-seated swinging holding-lever, constructed ao as to engage with a holding-loop or slotted attaching plate, and secure or release the same as said lever is closed or opened." The spring-arms are made of spring metal, and in shape conform to the ba.se-plate, which also may be of spring metaL They have their forward· ends curved to form pivot-sockets. Although this is the form shown in the drawings, the specification suggests that the sockets may be formed on the holding-lever and the pivots on the arms. In September, 1875, a patent was granted to Sylvanus Lyon for a clasp intended for use on pocket-books. It shows, in a spring-clasp, the combination with a bage-plate of spring-arms, formed and attached separately to said plate. The claim is as follows: I'The combination of the frame, A, hinged clasps, C, and springs, D, D, substantially as and for the purpose set forth." The difference suggested between Lyon's device and the device of the firth claim is that the spring-arms of the former are not provided with pivot sockets. On the 22d of July, '1884, a patent-No. 302,448-was issued to the defendant Thomson for a shoe-clasp, the application being filed March 4, 1884. It shows a base-plate formed from a metal blank. having an extension of sufficient length to be rolled up to embrace a hinge-pin. The tongue, provided on the underside with a cam, is hung on this pin. To the base-plate is riveted a spring-plate provided with

38 F. 602 -

38 F1d 602

May 17. 1889.)