tric thle'legs of the same,bedVSuch 'trails· :mission' is'sonoornmon to':aIHhiea:.ris' as to cause ilie toconC!ude this is T 'fnvsfieep' the com t' stl-tctly to the described'iidts patElllt;' so faras touches the case. ',:- ,,;, I ' '''; , Combinatiqne ofan inwardand,downward movement of the head of the bed, with;leverssoarranged as to transmit to th'e]egs the wmlt of this movemellit'fol' the' purpose of setting or folding the,m" seem to have long inyention ,owribd by the complainant; and the introduction elern,eut, of suspending supporting the bed, to me to involve such degree of noveltyllS to sustain 8nyclaims except very narrow'ones. The inventor's: merit in the case at; bar relates only' to the' 'preCise method used by him ,to ,secure compactness ,and simplicity. Therefore, while the plaintitit is, of course, entitled to the benefit of the rule of equivalents, they must be such as relate to details, excluding ,such as concern broad principles well known in many branches of the mechanical arts. ',All'it lanot denied that'respondel1tsmay laVliful1y carry the head of suspensio,ni :8110 combine with that the inward and downin wpich they do each, I think I by ordinary applianceS,and :that.theyhaJe,donenomorethan this. The cases cited by ma,in: Masten!v. llunt,iolFed. and Dederick v. Seigmund, 51 Fed. Rep. 233, seem of use here. Let respondents draw a decree of dismissal.; :withcosts" and· Btlbmit it to the eourt, with proof that it has been served on, the complainant.
HUNT '11. GARSED.
PA,TIllIi'l'8
Letters patent No. granted October 21, 1884, to John Hunt for an impro\'ement in pneumatio conductors. t,or signals,are invalid, for there is no patentable novelty in inclosing a number of rubbeJ;' tUbes, each individually commullicating with the signalinl{ mechanism in an elentor and with one of the floors of a building, in a jacket to keep them from kinkinl{, stretchinl{, and breaking, wben wires used signaling in elevators had been inclosed in the same way ·alid fol.' the and tubes had previously been usedior operating lIignaling mech!lnism in elevators. '
NALS.
.
PN,UJUTIO CONIlUOTOIlS FOR ELEVATOR BIG
In Equity. ,Suit by John Hunt against Robert P. Garsed to restrain the, i,n,fnngement, of letters ,patent No. 307,049, of October 21 t 1884, grantedtQ complainant. Bill dismissed, and patent declared invalid. A. S. Browne, for complainant. A. B. HOV1Jhto.,., for defendant.
HUKT
V. GARSED.
679
.. The patent is f6r. an im'prqvetnent in pneumatic conductors for elevator signals,. and. i,s., described by tb,e patentee himself as follows: "Indicators in t'levator carsforshowingft;om which tl(l(»,'of the building a call has bpen sent are now operated according to one or another of two systems, either by, electricity, requiring circuit Wire8 and a battery or by pneumatic means, requiring the interposition of air tubes extentiingfroin the push buttons on the several floors of the building to the Indlcatorliln,lihe car. It Is to the latter I:lystem that my inyentlon relates. It Is essen/li/llto this system that the seveJ;al push buttons be made each to operate a be)lQ,ws for compressing orrarefyingair, that an ail; tube extendfrpm each bellows to the car. and that the carbe ,Provided with an indicator, having as manybellows and drops as there are Ift(.l(irs and air tubes, and that such bellows be '(ionnected with the cOl'respondingait· tubes. Theseveml air tubes, in order to reach the moving car must be madetiexlblefora portion of their length; and be attached to one end of tile elevator; shaft, preferably to the middle therepf, and at the other end to the car, their flexible portion hanging freely beneath the car. From the bellows behind each push button, a small lead pipe Is carried, and tbese several pipes are carried along the ele\'ator shaft to its middle, at which point they are connected to asmany small rubber tubes, the opposite ends of which are 'fastened to th'l:l elevator car andllonnected with a second set of amaH lead pipes which lead to the pneumatic indicator. These rubber tubfJs, prior to my invention, were supported only by the attachment of their ends to the walls of the shaft and to the car, and were all independently attached and hung sepamtely and independently from the car. As their length is necessarily somewhat in excpss of half the heIght of the elevator shaft. in order to' accommodate the vertical movement of the cal', it is obvious that when the car is at the bottom of the shaft almost their entire length hangs from their point of attachment to the middle of the shaft, and that when the cads at the top of the shaft almost entire weight hangs from their point of attachment to the car. In either case a considerable weight of rubbel' tube has to be supported from the point of attachillent and through the end portion of the tulJe, the effect of which is to strain and stretch the tube, which consequently rapidly deteriorates. By haVing also, as many separate and independent rubber tubes hanging beneath the car as there are floors to the building (often eight 01' morp) there is considerable liabilityof their becoming entangled, kinked, or knotted, and in their swingIng. of being caught against prujecting parts and being injured. My present invention was designed to o,bviate these defects, to which end it involves assembling or grouping all of the flexilJle rubber tubes into a cable. fasteulng them together so that they shall not hang o,r swing independently, furnishing them with a flexible support, which shall relieve them of the strain of upholding their own weight, I\nd wrapping or covering them, so as to protect them from injury. These results I attain in my preferred construction by the simple expedient of winding arouud all the tubeS together a tulJular textile coveri ng or envelope."
The complainant's expert says: "The invention introduced by the patent in question comprises the grouping or assembling together of the tubes, aUl1 their connection with a parallel supporter, which carries their weight or a greater portion of it, and relieves the tubes themselves of thatstra,in. By this relief from strain or stretching. the lil'e of ,the tubes is increased llnd their deterioration by the formation of pin holes and cracks is greatly reduced. According to the patent, this parallel supporter is constructed by preference in the form of a tube, within
680,
FEDERAL REPORTER,
vol. 51.
wbich the rubber tubes inclosed, SO tbat .tbey are externally covered and held in proper relatiOn to one another so that they cannot, independently and are 'protected from abrasion." . The foregoing qllotations have heen made because tbey sbow tbe n,ature and scope of tbe .alleged invention, and the patentee's views respecting tbem, as briefly as they can be stated. ThE! defense. atU\cks tbe., patent on the ground, principally, that it ooversnothing new. We·find all the elements of the combination to be old. The only one'ha\1ing'the semblance of novelty is the so-called "pneumatic cable." This however is also old. A claim for it was made; but on objection by it was abandoned. The elements specially covered by the fourth claim are not new in the connection stated, and the claim was not pressed on the argument. Is the combination itself new? In the complainant's brief the single consideration involved is stated as follows: . "In vi,ew oUbe ordinarY' composite electric cables.for eleVl.\tors, having a plurality of conducting wires with an outer inclosing and insulated covering. did it involve invention. and was it patentable to group a of pneumatic tubtls, and support and protect them by a parall!:!l flexible supporter. an inclosing tubularcovllring." Every element except tbe so-called "cable" was previously combined in the same way for similar use, in pneumatic elevator signals, and the only difference between the and. the element it supplants is that it consists of several rubber tubes inclosed in the jacket, while previously the tubes were separate and independent of each other. In other words the only change which the patentee effected in the old pneumatic combinations consists in inclosing the tubes- within the jacket. Long before the date of the patent, substantially similar combination, in !lllrespects, was in general use for electric elevator signals. It is true that wires were there employed as conductors. instead of the tubes, used in the pneumatic system. When the electric system was first adopted the wires were allowed t9 bang separately; and precisely the same difficulties were encountered that attend the use of tubes hung separately in the pneumatic system. They tangled, kinked and were liable to strain and break. To overcome the difficulty, they were grouped and inclosed in a jacket having its ends properly attached, to support the wires and keep them in proper position. This jacket was sometimes composed of one material and sometimes of another,occasionally almost, if not quite, identical with that used by the COlllplainant. Substantially all the complainant did, therefore, was to apply to the pneumatic tubes the .jacket previously applied to the electric wires. The purpose'and effect in the one case are materially the same as in the other. We do not see in this anything requiring the exercise of invention; The complainant's counsel dwells on the difference between 'the electric aiid . pneumatic systems of signaling, ,but we are unable to . -, '
-
,.
MAHON V. M'GUIRE MANUF'G CO.
681
discover any importance in this difference, so far as respects the question involved. He thinks the jacket performs functions in thp. pneumatic system which it does not in the electric. If it does, this is not the result of any difference in the nature or character of the jacket, or the manner of its use, or of any merit in the complainant's work. If there is a difference in the functions performed it results alone from the difference in the nature of the conductors employed in the two systems. We are nrlt satisfied, however, that the alleged difference exists. It seems to us that in hoth systems, the jacket performs the same service.' The wires as well as the tubes, are liable to kink, tangle, stretch and break. There may be a difference in degree as respects the liability to stretch and break; but this is unimportant. Wire has, of course, a greater tensile 'strength than rubber, but all experience that it will stretch and break, even by its own weight, when not edy supported. It is quite as liable to kink and tangle as rubber. It is indisputably clear, however, that the main purpose and effect of the jacket in the one system and the other are the same; and however much one may dilate UpOl1 the characterizing differences of the two syS" terns, the fact remains that all the patentee did was to apply the old conductor coverings, long used upon the electric elevator signal, to the pneumatic signal, for the same general purpose. It follows that the bill must be dismissed.
MAHON
et al.
'Ii. McGUIRE MANUF'G
Co. et at.
(Cf,reuU Court, N. D. Illinois. May 2,1892.) PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-BENDING BLOCK-PATENTABLE INVENTION·.
Letters patent No. 337,006, issued March 2,1885. to David C. Mabon and others, for a "bending- block," consisting of a block or former adapted to the bending or shaping of the loop in guide rods for grain-car doors, are void for want of patentable invention.
In Equity. Bill by David C. Mahon and others against the McGuire Manufacturing Company and William A. McGuire. F. W. Parker, for complainants. West &: Bond, for defendants. BLODGETT, J. This is a bill for an injunction and accounting by reason of the alleged infringement of patent No. 337,006, granted to complainants March 2,1885, for a "bending block." The patent shows a block or former adapted to the bending; or shaping of a portion of the guide rods called for by the pa,tent granted William McGuire and Frank Jaeger, June 3, 1884, and December 1,1885, for a "grain-car The guide rod called for by the McGuire and Jaeger patents is made of round rodiroD, about three quarters of an inch to an inch in<diameter',
Advertisement
