FEDERAL ltEPORTER,
vol. 42.
atithOrship, he would'<loubtless feeFthat the invention was his own, and that he might lawfully so affirm both in his application fot a patent and in his subsequent testimony. Adecree will be made(authorizing the issue of a patent to the complainant as prayed.
KOCH
et .al. v.
BOJ,z
lit al.
(Oircuit Oourt, So D.1;iew York. March 81,1890.) I'AlrBlml FOB INVENTIONS-NoVELTY-A.'LiJihr CLABPS.
A patent for an album clasp consisted 'of fiat or lever springs, instead of spiral springs, which had formerly been to make the ('lasp, by"e;s;tending and contracting, adapt itself to any book. All ,the parts, except the difference in the kind of apring3 used, were used 1n the'clasps embracing the spiral sprhrgs. Held that, tlle use of fiat springs to do the work of tension and pressure had long been '!moWIi; the patent, if it could be sustained at all, should be limited to the exact detal1sof the combination as described i'nthe specification, and could not be infringed by t/le use of a similar spring for a similar purpose, with a difference in the manlI:er of applying it.
Bill for infringement ofletters patent. J. Solis Ritterband, (Edmund Wetmore, of counsel,) for complainants. Gilbert M. Plympton, for defendants. WALLACE, J. T4e only novelty in the improved"album clasp," which iathe subject of the complainants' patent, consists in the employment of flat or lever springs, in the place 6fspiral springs which had previously been. used; to make the clasps extend and contract, to adapt it to books of different thicknesses; The springs are located within the case or box of the extensible clasp, just as the spiral sprin/{s were, and act as the spiral 'springs did, by tension and pressure, to do the same work. The prior patent to Muller & Hipart describes all the parts in combination with spiral springs. .It is said that by using fiat the case can be made thinner, and consequently more artistic in appearance, than when spiral springs are used; and this seems to be true, unless the latter are 80 thillin diameter as to somewhat impair their efficiency. Inasmuch as lever or fiat sprin/{s and spiral springs were well-known. equivalents for one another, to do the work of tension and pressure,-so well known as to be a matter of which the court should take judicial notice,-ill various mechanisms in which two devices' are to be held in elastic relations to each other. it is very doubtful whether. there is any patentable novelty in the clasp of the patent. If there ie, it must be in the peculiar details of construction and arrangement ,by which the springs are made to cooperate with the other parts. ; ,. In the specification the patentees .state as follows: . "Within the box, e, there are sUitaQleSprings acting against these toes, i. prefer and use the volute spl'1ngs,f, the innel' ends of which enter the slOts 'intbeslruds, h, and the outer ends pass beneath or behind the toes, i."
NEW YORK GRAPE 'SU'GAR
co.
fl. AMERICAN GRAPE SUGAR CO.
455
The claim is for a combination in which the "springs, I," and "the projections, i," are elements. As shown in the drawings, the springs are not strictly volute springs, but are flat springs, coiled at the end at which they are fastened, and which exert their pressure at the other end, and when they are less closely coiled; and are similar to those shown in prior patents for door latches, and locks, which operate against the end of the latch or bolt, upon a toe, to throw the latch or bolt forward. The clasp alleged to infringe the patent is provided with two springs, which consist of short pieces of flat steel wire fastened at one end, and bent at the free ends, to conform to the two curved sides of the box, along which the springs press and move, and which curved sides in connection with the springs tend to draw the two parts of the clasp together. They are not volute or coiled. The free ends do not act against a toe or projection, unless the curved side of the box can be deemed to be a toe. ' ,I think that the complainants' patent, if it can be sustained at all, must be liinited toone in which the springs are of the details in form and character; and have the co-operating parts as described, and that the springs of the' defendants' clasp are not such springs. There was as much invention in employing the springs of the defendants' clasp instead of the springs of the patent as there was in employing the springs of the patent instead of the spiral springs. The bill is dismissed, with costs.
NEW YORK: GRAPE SUGAR Co. v. AMERICAN GRAPE SUGAR (Oircuit Oourt, N. D. New York. May 26, 1890.)
Co. d fll.
An interlocutory decree, after finding an infringement of plaintift's patents by defendant corporation, directed the master to take an account of the profits which had arisen or accrued to the corporation thereby; and on suggestion that the individual defendants were all the stockholders and officers of such corporatioll, and might, under the g!1ise of a new name and form of a lIew corporation, contillue to illfringeJ the decree further directed the master to also take an account. of profits that haa accrued to such individual defendants over and above the profits of the corporation. Held, that the decree did not direct an accounting of profits arising from infringements by other previously existing corporations, ill which defendants' were stockholders, or by corporations which had previously been formed in ,good faith, and not for the purpose of evading the deoree, though defendants were' controlling stockholders therein.
FOR INVENTIONS-INPRINGlWllNT-ACCOUNTING FOR PRoFITS.
In Equity. Esek Cowen and F. H. Pla.tt, for plaintiff. John R. Bennett and John G. Milburn, for defendants. SHIPMAN, J. The matters in issue upon .this hearing arise upon the admissibility of testimony which has been offered upon the accounting, which has been objected to by the defendants, and whioh hasbeencertified by the master for the opinion of the court. The history of the' patents is detaile<;l in. 18 Fed. Rep. 638, and 24 Fed. Rep. 604. ,The'