GAi'E$ IRON-WORKS
tI.' FRASEB.
51
The alleged invention in Gates' patent No.4 is summed up and embra-ced in the fourth claim which reads: "The shaft ofanore-crushiJ;lg machine provided with a hard metal plate on its lower end, in combination with an adjustable sliding step-block, an oil-step box, and a bearing for the sbaft, substantially as and for tbe purpose specified." Before tbis claim was allowed, the patentee was required to amend bis applica,;, tion by inserting the words, "the adjustable sliding," and the alleged infringing machine contains no such sliding block. The mere attachment of a hard metal plate on or in the lower end of the shaft, admitting that Gates was the first to do it, involved no invention. But if it did, it consisted in theimprovemellt of one of the elements of the combination, namely, tbe shaft, and did not affect the combination claim. Steel wearing, or hard metal plates, were old, and Gates did nothing m()re than any intelligent mechanic skilled in the art might have done. The shaft with the in-set plate operated in the combination just as it did before. No new or improved,result was produced. With the exception of the inset oftbe wearing plate, the drawings of the Brown & SbOville No.1 machine show the combination described in the Gates No. 4 tent. Indeed, the drawings of the old Brown & Scoville machines showGates'patent No.4 to be worthless. I find that the Brown drawings anticipate the Gates patents No.1, No.2, and No.3, and that Gates' patent No. 4, contains no claim for the insetting of tbe plate, and that that patent, too, is anticipated by the samedrawingl:l. In connection with the Gates patents, comp1l1ill!l.nt's counsel and experts have failed to give proper weight to the Rutter patent, the Brown patent, and the two Brown &: Scoville machines, especially the two latter machines. Gyrating shafts were in use before the date of any of the patents owned by the plaintiff.. The patentee simply took the old gyrating shaft, and applied common devices to it. ' . The first claim of the Rusk patent reads: "The combination, substantially as described, of soft metal pins or plugs. 0, 'with the driving gear of the grinding-mill." Rusk expressly limited himself to it soft metal pin, and his claim cannot be enlarged by construction. Thus limited, the claim is not infringed for the defendllllts' use, not a soft metal pin, but a hard cast-iron pin, and their machine does not show in'use inmachines of different the Rusk driving gear. kinds before the of the Rusk patent. The idea of the break-pin, broadly, was not original with Rusk. With the exception of the pin being somewhat more a(:cessibIe, the Raymond patent is not from the Rusk patent. ' . Briefly, these are my reasons for dismissing the bill. 'Later, I may give a fonnal opinion.· :;'
., I.,.,.
I'BDERAL REPORTER,
vol. 42. & Bom CO. et at
STUDEBAltERBROS. MANUF'G
Co.
V. ILLINOIS IRON
(Circuit Court, N. D. Ill1,nots. April 21,1800.) PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-WANT OF NOVELTY.
TlIimble skeins of sheet metal for wagon axles, having been previously wellknown. and made of cast metal of any shape, a bill for infringement of letters patent-No.256,744, issued to Joshua Sandage, April 18,1882, for a wagon-axle skein, is demurrable for want of novelty; the alleged invention consisting in cutting a blank sheet of metal in such shape that, when rolled into cylindrical form, it will fit not only the spindle section of the axle, but also extend over the shoulder. with a wing along the under side of the axle, back of the collar.
.
In Equity. Demurrer to bill. Cobttrn '&: Thacher, for complainant. J. H. Ra'ymqnd, for defendants. BLODGET'J.',.T. This is a bill in equity charging defendants with the infringeme:nt of patent No. 256,744, granted by the United States to Joshua Sanqage,April18, 1882, fora and praying for an injul1ction and accounting... Defendants have demurred to the bill on the ground that the patent in question, on its face, shows no patentable novelty in the device covered by the specifications and claims. The device described in the specifications and claims is a thimble skein for wagon. axles produced .from plate metal. and the specifications give instructions as to the shape into which a blank of plate metal like boiler iron is to pe cut, so that, when bent or rolled around a mandrel or former of the conformation of the axle upon which the skein is to be used, its edges will come together where they may be either butt-welded or lapwelJed. The skein described is so formed as to cover not only the spindle section of the axle, but to extend back so as to cover the shoulder of the axle, with a wing extending along the under side of the axle. There is no claim or statement in the patent that this shape fora thimble skein is new; and hence itwill be assumed, for the purposes of this case. is old. It may also be assumed that it is part of the that the COmmon knowledge that axle skeins have for many years been made of cast metal of such shape as was deemed desirable for their use. and that there was no, difficulty in casting skeins which reach onto or cover the shoulder of the axle, or extend along the under sid,e of the axle, back of the collar. The patentee inserts as part of his specifications a dis" claimer as f o l l o w s : ' .
"I am aware that wagon-axle skeins have been madeQf a single piece of sheet metal; and hence. I make no broad claim to such constru.ction of device. but restrict myself to certain improvements specified in the claims."
Assuming, then. as conceded, that thimble skeins made of sheet metal were old and well known when this inventor entered the field, and that such skeins had been made of cast metal of any desired shape, the question is, can there be any invention in cutting a blank sheet of plate metal in such shape as that, when rolled, or bent into cylindrical form, it will
