I'IlJ)EUJ"
vol. 40.
,defendant inaiststhat! this proves that no marriage exnot marry. it necessary,.I would charge isteP,·as slaves yoq ,tlJ.at this testimony would. estal:>lish a marriage. It is not necessary. On 19th December, 1865, the legislature of South Carolina declared that aU colored persons who at that, qate were living together as husband and wife were husband and wife. 13 St. at Large, S. 0.269. If the permioper and David Deas in 1865 were living as husband and wife, she is ll,is lawful widow.
in
the defendant gullt".
SHIPMAN 11., BEEBElt
it aZ.
(Oircu4f1 Op.urt, N.D. ;, ;.1. -:.; .: ' . . ; ( __ . _ _'.
New ,-:
,f'"ork. .December 8, 188t.)
j \.:" _. ',; (DBINGl!HBm.' OP :P",TENTS-PRIOR. STATlII ,0" 'nDI ART- BUTTONS
, . , :Letters"patentNo; 857,237, 'P'ebruwty 8, 1887, to M. G, f::lhipmBn was for an Inven. t. 'tlQU: QOl1l\lsting of forr gll'l"UJents, leather. etc. bltttonmember ,consisted of a stud, having a head, neqk, and outwardly spreading base, and of i the stud, ora separate pal't; .The stem cebtmIiltem,whichimay be intligral>wftli wa,s allllopted to pas!! through the IItud, the fabric on which the base of .the stud rested! and tobe clinched on the opposite side of the fabric, with or with. out & washer, tnus fastening the button.'member,of the combination flrmly to the ,fabrip. ,None of the draWings but.!t is il1.&l1 cases witht1l.e stud. An earlier patent ,to oue Platt QOnsisted a tubular stud, With a J!ange"t'right angles to the base, andbi it.n inner tubular"1llBmber, ha....ing a flange, lNld an "erelet." 1,lhe parts were'united. by placing the QutElrtube on one side o( the fabric, WIth its flange resting thereon, inserting the iriner tube through tlie fabria in'tothe outer 'tube, and compreSSIng the Parts together. Defendants WIt\Cl a contrivance similar to the Platt pawnt, that t,he stem differed from the eyelet ot the Platt patent slightly iIi formI and in proportion of its diameter to that. of the stud. Held that; in view ot the pr or state of thear.... defendants did not. int$getu,e Shipman'patent. _ '(', ' l; ,
,,lVitter¢Kenyoo, Johrl, R,., Bennett,fQr <iefendant/!.; ,r; ';,' ; .. .\
." .
·
.
,':; "
, -.U' :.!
.'
,",
o.
W AHLA,<!Jjl J· The ,complainantallegea that the infringe 6 357,237, dated February 8, 1887, gran,ted tq MadisonG.rShipman. which i,s,the subjectof buttpPIl. It fastening device composed of .two. QrganilOOd membj:lrs, respectively, tq th/il two parts of the arpedastened tggether. ,One ,Qf garmeijtto ,be fasteneq"and the. other t1w qutton proper. :E-Il' such it ,eacpof the two, Ipi!f:llbers will atimit .()f·beiQg fastllfwqsecurelytoJhe faQricof the glove,:shoe,.or, garment, pond, will!sp c,o-operate,'oNHh the other tl111Uhe artic1ecap be readily butMid beeH:ectually heldwholl!Quttoned. In state of the art,the ,essential Jloveltyof the inventions consists: in ,a. new organization of two of the parts of the
, . ,.. SHIPMAN 17. 9EEB:JR. ,
461
button, melllbllr, which may. be conveQieHt1y as the "stud" and the "stem.". 'Each of the thJ;6e claims IS, for a .combination. The button.hole member, 'which is, an element of all the claims in controversy, consists with a hollow tube to receive the stud of the button member,and a spring inclosed within the cap, and entering the tube, which expands wilen the head of the stud enters or is withdrawn fron) the tube, and contracts in,wardly llpon the neck of the stud to lock it in, place. The button member, which is also an element of all the claims, consists (1) of a stud, (termed in the specification a "buill,") having a head, a neck, and an outwardly ,base; and (2) of a central ,which may be integral with the stud, or may be as a part. By ,the express terms of the claims, the central stem must be "adaptedtopas$through the materi,al from one side,and be, ,clinched upon the side 'oI?Posite to that from which it passed through, substantially as described." The drawings show a stem integral with the stud, or, integral, located within the stud, which has an euti projecting the base of the stud, capable of passing through the flj.bric upon which, the button member is to be fastened, and of being clinched or upset against the fabrip. The specification states that the lower end of the steIP i$ QIincped over the edge orthe orifj.ce in a washer, but tliat the washer maybe dispensed with, and, then thelow,er end of the, steni is clinched, "directly upOJ} the fabriQ."Both the specification and the denote that the stem is to 'Oil clinched agai,nst the the washer) after the stelll has,beeninserted in the s,Lud, and on the side,of the fabric opposite the stud. Of co:ufse, when it is made integfll.lwit,h thestjld, it cannot be clinched in anY,other place. This is the, method by which the fabric is firmly held between the clinched end of thest,em and the base of the stud, and the the stud are with ,each other. Both the stud /lnd the stem, or either one pf them. may be madt:' hollow or solid., The fourth claim is for a combination of the elemellts thus described. The fifth and sixth clain;ls are fora narrower combination; Jhe fifth bejng limited to a. combination of the parts in which the stu.d is hollow, and the aixthto one in which both the stud and ' stem . are hollow. " " It unless the defendants infringe the fourth claim, they ,do not infringe any of the,claims in controversy. Their separable button :the hutton-ho,le .member of claim, ,thojlgh .not speClfically ,Thell'.lmtton member IS adapted t() be Jls.ed .with button-hole member which differs in details of froIl). described in buUt can be used, perhaps not.as efficiently, with the buttoLl-holeD,lember of the claim.. It has a stud, wh,ich has a'hea4, neck, and an outwardly spreading base. Itqlls also a tubular or hollo,w stem. The stemls surrouQde<i bYa flange at o.ne end,. The stud anp stem are not ,integral, are separate. 'I;heyare, united together by passing the stern through the' the stud, until the 'flange .of the holds the fabrica'gainst of the thepartsllore plinched ,sion. is to be ,c,linphed,against
FEDJl:lli :ltEFORifEi,
40.
thestuii"ol altha fab.. ,side at which'it"isiriser:ted; 'It is. adapted to to the siud ntsome 'lJeyona J 'th'8.t· 'plage; that is, at hr' neii:nhe' ,head Of the stud; , idifierence between: 'its adaptability to the, fabric 'antlth'E!'ijHaptabilitY9f the stem of the exhibits the strJIctural etl;ces 'between the i', differences,slight as, they may niaterial,'heoause they JcOtistitlitethe only between the' bf tna, claim: and'the 'com\;>inatiohlfWhich were'old in: ',The Il1ethodofunitingthe parts of the then1Qer, and: holding the fdbHcbetweerl,them, iIi the device of the more hearly reseIl1bles'wha,t is showl) in the ,patent to Platt than the it does thnt of the patent ' the patetitto Platt the is tubular, and has a flange base. 'It hall also an inner tubular which' has a right angles tb' it:s shank, which is called M '''eyelet.''" This 'eyelet differs' the stem:ofthe defendants' slightly proportioq,lyhich its tolhe, of the fltud. THe parts are unIted' together oJ 'Placing tbe outett'uQe on one sIde of' tile Jeather,'orotHerfabric, with its thefabnc, the inner tiibe through the fabric Itlto the 'outer tuba,'aM' two partstogether,"thu8 effeCtuaHyri\'eting theeyeiet ,to the stud;" It may be that the Platt button lUerrl.ber isnod;s wcll adapted Wi'be fastened to fabrics differing thickness as one n1adelike that1of' patent; bilt" it this is true, it 1s l>f the device o( defendants. On .the'other hand, it is obvious that Both the' buttQn!mem'ber of the Plattpatetit and that of the defendaritsdispertse with thEfuse' of a, washer neftt to :the fabric; and, iUthough" i(is' said, ititha ,'comphiinant1s patent thlltt ,the, washer is only preferably would s,eern ',1'4ain, that, the 'upsetting ihe end' Of the a.loue be ,Ii. cruaetind and' that' the ofa o!r'asuJ)stUbfu for 'a washer,like the flanges tube 'of:Platt ottha sten\of tlie' he Ji:t1trlbst indispensable artistically finished bqttop fl!Jltening. ' ,. '::The6oriiention for the cOblplaillant, that the' bUttbJimember ofthe defendants'has the'gtem.of the pl)tent,DElcau!?-6 thiit, stem can be removed :fr6II1 the.stfid',itbd' united 'it again: by first through the maaildthatit is immatetiu,l' whether" the twb parts' are riveteq. to1gether dose to the fabric, barilHJt 'be:sanctioned. ,Su'i.\h'amethod of unit'irlg Rytpe Jshow a,stem'deta.ched from the atM. , In eachiHufiltratlon the parts are togethElr;'The theofy:that thevare capa'blEtOf being detached ,reliriftell,iQ the:, way is merely' cOlUecttiral.' It is antag;otiizooby 'the langtiageOf'the'Claifus, whichdescrihes t.he pharacteristics this language itisbdrne in ,includes 'a stem whicn isiqtkgral'with Such a steIl)., cot11d''otllYbe<clinched' bnthe,sideof"the fabric opposite ':the'stud and Ibn1Y' Mpasl3ed'from 'tnesttid;thtoogh :the
'lise
I
"
"t1·. BEDlllLt. .
463
·The caS$,js,Dotone in tobeglvep,a ,more liberal construction ;than their language'fairly requires. The sep, 'ofthe patent lia:s never commercially, and the only evidence that it can be made commercially is found in 'tion oHhe:expert and counsel'for the 'complainant that the defendants '. are making it. In view of the prior state of the art as shown in the rec"ord, the only novelty of the invention of the claims resides in anew or· ganization of the stem' and stud relatively to each other in details of form and pr0l>0rtion, except in instances where the·· two parts.aremlide ,integral,> unless it fesides' in assembling the two parts together before they are applied to the fabric. · Without passinlpipon the, question of the patentable novelty of the'pombinations, .the bill is dismissed because the defendants do
(CircuU
,/
S.
v.1(e!» .York. . . '," ',,"
8. 1889.)
PATllNTB POB INVENTIONs-INFl\ntlritpN'l'-"-BABKWr-.CO'VEB !<'UTllNINGB.
The claim of letters paterill issued .November 4, 1879, for an improvement in basket-cover fasooI1lngs; W'aS for a combination of (1) a box or basket; (2) a cover on the basket; and (8) a metallic fastener, at one end of which there is a hook attacbed to the hoopQi. the basket, at the opposite end a bend at an acute angle, provided with a IIharP 'point,which is driven into the basket cover, and in the middle a rectangular bend. The specifications said that the fastener device CIil$\J.ni ¥lanner the micidl.e .buqhe'prigiul!>l·<;iaim, being for the fastener, was rejectetl, and the claim. was ·stn.eildea. ' IJeld, 'that sale of the fastenel' Without the mIddle bend, alonel did not infringe the .patent,IIDil\l!-s it was capable of innocent use, it was ilIlJpaterial that it was also capable of bemg bent so as to infringe. " . "':. . '
In Equity. Bill for infringement of pl;l.tent. William H. Arthur '11. r.
\,v... ... . '
.',.t",..
",
BriksfJ/r., for defendant.
for complainant.
,'No.' 221 !
cciilri,J'. tufniifis ank6tioIl,'of infrihgerileilt, based Ndvem ber 4:, 1879, . for a,n
:"'i'he IIl-Y,enHoncdnsists .in thllcombination,' With II Jjoxand 'its:cov'er, or a middle. bent'agaiu:nearthe other end ,at an
'Specification 'says:.'
.'.. .·...
in ' basket. ,:. ", .. and:provided
· ·
beD:tito form at OM end a close hook. ,bent again 'rectangularly
with,asharp.,point for entering tfietop of the ;cove:r.
:..*
.. f.or.the pu. J:P ()SIl.,"o.f.. . .... .. g. . ... co.,v.ers.,.. 0.f . per. 'b.an.dba.. x es . . .. ,E!l1pilar lIorticles. Wh"n ,'or that· the !IOOlt.' B, is Inserted iri the of the, body oftile device Mwn the side I of the box. intO.which the pOint; C.is inserted, and ,is retained itI}>laee bj'the -'hold'prbdueed brite'aiigle. ... ,... ," I do Dot 'btuadly' claim a tnl'ltallic bar or rod' benti itl'to shape for !bolding a basket cover. on a 'basket, "that suelj. .is hot broadly: new: ;,bg,t ;wbat :I dq ; . i ,... ,r j , .. E. a. ,b,l:!!Wt,llrt b
,m.a1.a.lso. be.,. .
(.
'" "
,,-,",:-;'"
,'"
-'-,
''I'
,'.
