V. SARGENT. '
In case N9'. 2,675, I shall ,adjudge the defendants in conte!11pt with respect to Mathison No.3 machine. It is not clear to me that the defendants are guilty of contempt for the collection of royalties under their leases; and therefore I shall onlj' hold them in contempt on the first ground. Petitions granted.
WOLLENSAK '/1. SARGENT (Oircuit Oourt,
et al., (two cases.) January 18, 1890.)
The invention described in letters patent, reissue No. 9,307, issued to J oho 'F;Wol'; lensak, July 20, 1880, which merely: pro:vides for a proper support for the upright rod of a transom,lUter to prevent lts being bent by the weigbt of the transom,conOf a guide orloop beyond the rod's junction witb' the liftin¥ arm, and ths extensiOll of tberod to' tbe loop, is noll a patentable device. FoUowmg , '3SFed', Rep. 840. . . ", , ':l.' OF CLA.iM. , ' I,t appearing both intberei!jsued patent, and in the patentee's statement 'to the patellt-office, thattbe guide above the junctionpf the operatillg rod with the liftillg arm, and' the of the rod beyond,the junction, were represented' a's the improvement,a,claim fl;lr'tlle upper guide, in combination with tbe ,prolonged rod, !1nd th!3,lifting, arm, cannot .be cQnstr;ued.to illplude, also, lowe,r guides, apd a 10\lklng devlCe, on the ground that the inwntlOn was'ot 8substantlallyentire transom lifter, Bnd liftingB.J:m. ' , , 11. S,UIE-SKy-LIGHT LIFTERS., ' " . " , The sky-ligbt lifter de!!cribedin patent No: 191,088, ,issued May 22, 1817{' to John F. Wollensak, havlDg a fixed gUlde bar, 'a slidmg block: 1fting rods"and a looking' bolt attached to and moving with tbe sliding bloclr, is a patentab1eimprovllment, and not anticipated by letterll patent No. 8,/,,668, illsued March 9, 1869,to Georgll Hayes, which had a fixed bolt attached to the bUilding so as to loek the sliding bar.' , , , . .4,. SAME-INFRINGEMENT.
1.
PATENTS
lNVllNTIONS-PATlNTABIT.ITy-..rRANSOM LIFTERS.
in letters, patent No. 226,.3113, iSBul.'dApril6,1880 toFrank A, Reiber,having a fixed guide bar, lif.ting arms, and o,perating rod, wIth an enlarged upper end in wbicb is a pin engaging witb holes in tbe bar and dis6Qgaged . bya twist of the rOd, is an infringement of the first' claim'of said 1111,088, having a fixed guide bar and a sliding block with a locking bolt by a cord, with wbicb tbe sliding block is moved, but not of the secon 'clalm; ip. which tbe presence of tbe cord to act on tbe bolt as described is essentiato Following v. Sargent, llilFed. Rep, 840." ". .
,
In Equity. ,Bills for infringemElDtofletters The third, of .letterspatent No. 9,307 is as foJJows: "(3) G. arranged above the junction of the lifting armand up:right rod, incqlIlbina,tion witQ 'the prolongedrod,h, the' guide, G.,a,nda.riD. A. ,substantially as and for the specified." .' ,
The first
claims
are asfollmvs:
"(I) The sliding block. 0, .carrying the spring locking bolt, g.incombination witb the fixed gujde bar, B, connecting rod or h,and tbe,oper.ating ,cord or cords,of. sl)bstantiaUy as described. for the purpusespecified., (2) The ,(:olI)binatjon 'of tlleoperating cord. f. with the spri!'lg locking 'bolt, .q;aild, the sliding bloc'k;! C. to which the sash i's conneeted.'arranged as descfLbed, so tl13t the act of'ipuHlng the cord backward shall dillehgage tbelocklng',bolt ,continued downwllrdpull, upon the same cOl'd shall. " ' :.,;' J'aise the sash, substantially as described." '
rP Eph¥a%t7100ni?ig and ·i. ':';
Johii' /(';: 'iJ!1each and Benj.P. 'ThUrston, for defendants. :, '
Inger8oll, for 'cotnplainant." ,
, ,
SHiPMAN, J. These are twobillsih equity, (Nos: 585 and 587,j which Rre respectively founded upon the alleged infringeme11tof the'third claim of reissued letters patent No. 9,307, dated July 20, 1880, and of the first and second claims ofletterspatent No. 191,088, dated May 22, 1877, each of said patents having been issued to John F. Wollensak. The original of reissue No. 9,307 was dated March 11, 1873, and was for an improvement in transom'lifteTs.' No.191,088dsfor an improved sky-light lifter. Motions for preliminary injunctions were brought ih these two cases, and' weredenied\,"83 Fed. Rep. '840. The opinion upon the motions states tpe claipls'Yp.ich areallElged to other facts in regard "to ,.the character althe patented iin'..' pr{)vements; which need not, ' . . . . .. Theinv6tltion which waseUiibrilcedJri reissue No. 9,307 was deClared by the supreme 87, 5 Sup;iCt. Rep. 1132, to be "the cQmbination with a liftjng operating. l'Eld, ofa guide for,' the ,tlpper end of tbe' operating·. rod; pro-lqpged lifting so as to prevent, theoperatingrod' from'· being bent or displaced by the weight of the transom.» this was, };lased uP<i#; of ,the Mt :at the date of the a.lleged invention, which was described in both the original and reissued patent aIJ ·.... . . ..... .": ': have constructed with a long uprlghtl'od or handle joiilted 'at its upper end to a lifting a.rm, :-vhieb extends to. and is side ,or sash.'.thesl1sQ being opehed or closed by a vertical movement of the long rod. Wh.enthus constructed, the upright rod is liable to bebent by the weight of the transom, owmgtnthe want ofsupP0i't'at or near the' point '00 unction betw.eell the long rod anqthe li1tjl'lg atm. 'TllEi'9bject of my ,is to to ren1etly this dlfficulty,and t9'lIqch llndit In suppqrt, c>r support and gUIde. for: the the lifting ,tod ,during its at rest."" !; -:r::·.. ,; , , J ' ,r The complainant introduced the fHe.wrapperand c6ntents of the appeal to the examiners chief in the matter of. this reissue. In the patentee's st,at-ement of hia case, hisattornetsayel that, "pnor.1,to Wolleiisak's invention, transoM'lifters 'had been composed of long verr()d, to, movetbroughtgtiides onthe door upper el1d>'projeeting a:e6nsiderable and jblnte<i to the transom b{' a pivoted cOi1l1ecting ro<t' 'An shown on the'ltMnsoms ottheiid:aminer in: chief's rooms." He then states, more ·at thdnin' defect in! bf ..t;?d' lobe bent1W tli,e;'!Elight of f!,nd the It. thep!l.ten.t was before the tqe g,tude above the of the, operating rod with the lifting: arm and the pro-longationof th-e rod beyond' thejunction were repreaentedas, constituting the improvement. ',',.', '.'.! " " , 'd " ,,' , ' " · j . : , ; . ,. ·
.1
, _
_
a
sucb
}
··ARGENT.
Thecomp]ltinant' contended upon: this hearing thl1t the 'patentee was the first inventor of, transom lifters who achieved success. was, in fact, the pioneer in the art; that the, invention was really much more ,than the addition of the upper guide, and consisted also of lower supports and alacking device; and that, in addition to the transom, the lifting arm, operating rod,and gUides for its upper rod, which are mentioned in the claim as the elements of the combination, the guide nearthe lower end of the rod, provided with a' set-screw, and an intermediate guide, should also ,be properly included as elements in the third claim. It is said that, in the. description of pre-existing devices, it is neither stated ,nor admitted that anything more thana rod and lifting arm had been .used, ood that if guides,were used they were not supports; 'and it is truly said that snoh a device, w'ithoutsupports to support the rod, or hold it ,away from the, and without a locking ,device, would, be almost useless. '. It: is.' further said that the and the reversible bracket were, lin fact,' novel methods,'of acComplishing the par,tieularwork which,they;weremade to do; and thus; that the Wollensak lifter,as ,s. whole, wasauQV'el and useful product of inventiQu,whioh deserves to be included: !within' the 'protection of :the. second and third claimsoHher.eisslied patI'lDt.,_ answerto thesesuggestklOs is that .althoiIgh il,mayi,be true that Wollensak's, actual. invention, :.inCluded all the details of.. the device:except tbe.rodand the HftingJarm, and was a substantiaUyentire transom' lifter, 'yet that his reissued, ,patent,as it now exists" not only does, not make;such abroad clahUj,bQt confines ili.<lelf to; the: narrow limits which have been mentioned. ,The patentee declared tha.t his invention'CQnsisted in providing the proper$Upport ,and guide ,for the upper end' of the lifting rod. Upon that theory ,the invention 'waspresentedl to:thepatent-office,both in the applioation andupoIY1heappeal.The.obviousintent of the patentee and the lan'guage ofthe.patent.unite in the consttuction which, has been Juniformly given, to it·. The court cannot broaden thegrantbey'ond the which ithepatentee himself imposed·. ,Railroad Co. Vi Mel1(J'(t, 104 ·. The effect ofthe cou8truction· which is asked fovvould , be to graft upon an invention' not previouldy: "indicated,pPQn its face,!' Dorstated in the specification as one belonging to the patentee. :Day Railway' Co., '182. U.· s. --, ,10 Sup. Ct. Rep.lt. ' For tqe reasons whioh are given in the. former opinion, the impro.velment;whioh::consistsofthe extension of the rod andjts confinement within an additional metallic loop or eye, does not appear to me to<hWe ,t, pMenmble:chilractell;',but lohave been the obvious suggestion. which wouldoccUortoa mechani:t:. I have no reason .to'doubt that in'Y'Bntrve genius; was, required and was manifested in the development present lifter· from' a. nakedirod andaliftmg arm, bu;t the improvement .which ,a lifter alrearl&"lutnished !With' it9 rod" moving within SI1 pportinggUtides, -and locked' whenilecessaryby a seboscrew ,,0 does. not pass beyond tbe line . .,,,' " , , , mechanibBlskill. '" : '" :: 'I1bequestion:of patentable'inven:tion, in .view of. the al'tat of1the
FEnERAL REPORTER,
vol. 41.
patent· No. 191,088. The transom lifter described in the Wollensak patent of 1874, No. 148,538, had a fixed guide bar, a lifting arm, a rod for operating it, and a set-screw to hold the rod at a desired point. The device described in No. 191,088 had a guide bar for and guiding a pliding block which communicated motion to lifting rods, and a locking bolt attached to and moving with the sliding block so as to engage at different points with holes in the guide bar. The invention was designed for a sky-light, and 'cords were used instead of a rod to disengage the bolt, and to raise or lower the sky-light. The locking bolt is ;disengaged from the holain which it is held by means of a cord which is attached at each end to the block, and'extends up over a pulley, and down· through an eye in the outer end of the locking bolt.' 'fhe step in advarke which was made upon the transom lifter of No. 148,538 was its locking! device. . Instead of fastening the rod at a desired point by means .of a ,set.:screw; the sliding' block is made to engage at different points with holes· in; the gu.de bar,by means of a spring; bolt. Thecd'Mendant strongly insists that this patent wall! anticipated by the :sky-lightdescribed in letters patent No. 87,668, dated March 9, 1869, t<>George Hayes. This sky-light had two sashes, hinged together at the middle; Below the hinge was a pUlley, and· projecting downward was a . fhecd .bar. A sliding blook on the bar was connected' by links with both sashesj;A cord attached·to the slide passed over the pulley. A pull fr-Qm .the cord ·raised the ,slide and the sashes. No locking device was sbuwnor described. Theddea probably was to fasten the cords to a cleat.. ·A second form ofthis sky-light Was shown which had, instead of a fixed bar, a'movable bar connected with the sashes by links. The bar itself was drawn up by the cord., A bolt was attached to the fixed part of the building so as to engage the sliding: bar and lock it. This form oft,he Hayes invention had a stationary bolt which engaged with a sliding bar.. No,' 191,088 has a' sliding block which carries a .locking bolt up atld dbwn the fixed gufde bar. The Hayes sky-light shows that Wollensak was not the first to use llibolt to engage with the part of the mechanism whichrnoveoothe transom; but the Hayes stationary bolt, 'Which was fastened to the building; and which was permitted to engage -with holes ina moving rodris a different thing from a bolt which is oarried by a slidihgblocku'pand down a fixed guide .bar, and which,in comparison, with the primitive method of locking' shown by Hayes, exhibited invention, and lthink is also a patentable improvement upon ,·the set-screw of Wollensak's previous patents. The Reiher lifter,whitlh is shown and described in the Frank, A. ,Reiher patent No. 226;353, dated April16, 1-080, and is also made and sold by the defendantsi"has a fixed guide bar, lifting arms, and a rod for operating them; the;u!>,perand enlarged.endof the rod being what may .properly be designated a Upon the block there is a pin, 'which engageswithhQles in the guide bar.. A twist ofthe l"od:withdraws the pin, and a. vertical motion moves the block which moves the lifting arms. The spring action of, ,the rod; which is an equivalent for the cords of the'nrst'claim of the Wollensak patent) causes the pin upon
THE CIAMPA AMELIA.
block toengttge with holes in the bar. has taken the Wollensak method· of locking by means of a bolt attaohed to and moving with the sliding block, and has improved it, substituting a pin for the more clumsy bolt, but the infringement is manifest. The second claim of No. 191,088 apparently demands the presence of cords to act upon the spring bolt in the described manner, and is therefore not infringed. Let the bill No. 585 be dismissed. In No. 587 let there be a decree for an injunction against the infringement ofthe first claim of No. 191,083, and for an accounting,
THE CrAMPA AMELIA.1
CIAMPA .". THEF.
W· VOSBURGH.·' January 28,18110.)
(L>i8t'rlct Oourt, E. D. NetDYOT1c.
OOLLIIIION-Tow AND DREDGB AT ANOHOR-CHANGB OJ' CoURSB;
The ship C. A., while towed by the tug V. up the Delaware river, OD a clear night, brought up on the hawser of a dredge at anchor in the middle of the river, and was thereby sheered suddenly into the dredge, and sustained damage, to recover which she brought this suit against the tug. The evidence indicated that theaecident was caused by an attempt on the part of the tug to pass from the east to the west side of the dredge, when so near the latter that t·hf> ship, in following the tug, brought up 1'S above Btated.. . that the tug was liable for the damage.
In Admiralty. Action for dftmage by collision. Wjng, Shoudy «Putnam. for libelant. Hyland Zabriskie, for respondent.
«
J ..... This was an action brought by the owner ofthe Italian Ciampa Amelia to recover of the tug F. W. Vosburgh for damages sustained by that ship by coming into collision with the dredge Arizona, is little dispute. while in tow of the tug. As to most.af the facts The ship was being towed up the Delaware river by the Vosburgh, on a hawser from 40 to 45 fathoms in length. The tide was 'strongflood, the wind fresh from the south-south-east, the night clear starlight. The dredge Arizona was anchored ,by spuds on Mifflin bar, in the middle of the river, with 250 yards of water, 20 feet deep, on each side. The tug approached the dredge from below, and passed the dredge to the west,.; ward. The ship in tow, as I think the evidence plainly shows, brought up upon one of the hawsers of the dredge, which ran from her stern to an anchor. When the ship caught on the hawser, she was thereby caused to sheer suddenly to the starboard, and dragged by the tug into collision with the dredge, the bluff of her port bow striking the lower easterly Cler oUhe dredge a violent blow. The case turns upon the question whether the ship followed the tug. and was towed by the tug so .near the dredge as to bring her upon the BENEDICT,
bY!E4ward G. Ben!'l4ict, EsQ.., Qfthl! New York baJ,".
