BRUSH ELECTRIO CO. V. ELECTRIO IKP. CO.
965
BRUSH ELECTRIO
Co. et 01. ".
ELECTRIO
IMP. Co. S. 18W.)
(Circuit Ccmn, N. D. CaZVomia. October
No.I0,7M. 1. PJ.TBNTS WOR INVENTIONS-PIONEER INVENTO_ELECTRIO LllIPL
Letters patent No. 219,208, issued September 2, 1879, to Charles 11'. Brueh, for aD eleCtric lamp having two or more pairs of carbons, in combination with mechanism constructed to separate the pairs dissimultaneously or successively, thus producing a steady light for a long period of time, cover a pioneer invention, and are entitled to a liberal construction. The invention was not a mere improvement or modification of the single-C/'tbon lamp preViously invented by Brush, nor was there anything to limit the. scope thereof in the prior state of the art, either or as shown in the patent to M. Day, Jr., the French patent to Denayrouse, or the patented Jablochkofl candle. Brush Electric Co. v. Ft. Wayne Elect1"ic Liuht Co., 40 Fed. Rep. 833, and llnI.8h Eleetnic Co. v. Western Electric Light & Power Co., 48 Fed. Rep. 586, followed.
i.
SAME-LIMITATION 01' CLAIMS-PRIOR ART.
II SAME-FuNOTIONAL CLAIMS.
The fact that the claims purport to cover broadly all forms ()f mechanism conItructed to separate the two or more sets Of carbons dissimultaneously or successively does not render tbe patent void as being for a function or reSUlt, since particularmeans are described in the specifications and referred to in the claims; and the patent covers sucb means or their substantial equivalents. Brush 'Electric v. Ft. Wayne Electric Light Co., 40 Fed. Rep. 838, .and Brush Electric Co. v. Westem Electric Light & Power Co., 43 Fed. Rep. 586, followed. O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. 62, distinguished. ' '.
co.
.,. SAME-ABANDONMENT.
No limitation was placed the Brush patent by the fact thatbis claims, as first presented, were rejected as functional, and tbat the language was twice sligbtly changed, for the file wrapper shows that there was thees· sentialfeatures of the claims, 'and that the pateilt office, after a 'contest, finally yielded to the patentee's views. .' '.
'
5.
SAME..,..INPIUNGEMENT.
The Brush patent is infringed by ,the lamp made nnder letters patent. No. 480,722, issued .tune 24, 1890, to James J. Wood, in which tpe pairs of carbons are separated disstmultaneouslyor successively, notwithstanding the fact that this reslilt is accomplished In the Brush lamp by a clutching device, operated directly by the elec trical current, while in the Wood lamp it is produced by the interposition of clock mechanism, which is brought into actlon and controlled by the current..
In Equity. Suit by the Califomia Electric CompaIlY (licensee of the Brush Electric Company) and others against the Electric Improvement Company, the Brush Electric Company being joined as a plaintiff. A preliminary injunction was granted. 45 Fed. Rep. 241. Decree for complainants. M. M. Est6e, J. H. M'Uler, and L. L. Leggett, for complainants. W. F. Herrin and R. S. Taylm, for respondent. HAWLEY, District Judge. This is 8 suit in equity for the infringement of letters patent No. 219,208,granted to Charles F. Brush, September 2, 1879', for an improvembnt in electric arc }amps. The Brush Electric Company is the owner of the legal title of said -patent, and the
California Electric Light Company has an equitable title as the exclusive licensee for the states of California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. The is" char,g,l3d .,iniriJ;lgillg, QY the use of the Wood lamptuiderletfars patent No. 430,722, granted to JamesJ. Wood, June 24, 1890, for new and useful improvements in electric arc lamps. A preliminary. injuMtienwas"ordered'by J'udgeSAWYltli; upon the authority of Brush Electric Co. v. Western Electric Light &- Power Co., 43 Fed. Rep. 533, and Brush Electric Co.v· .filWayne Electric 00., 44 Fed. Rep. 284. While declining to discuss the questions involved in this case, the learned cases referred patentls valid,and the 6rstalx claIms areln£nIlgeo. by the Wj>od lamp." 45 Fed. Rep. 242. The <case is upon the final hearing upon the testimony taken before the examiner. '%e to the cases referred W, sustained Electric Co. v· Ft. Wayne Electric Lighl. Co., Rep. 826 j and . 1ltu8h Electric Co;v. New Amerua'llEl¢rical Arc J'Agh,t Cb.. ,4,6 FEia. Rep. 79·. The learned counsel who argued this case for the defendant insists "that, notwithstanding allthe.sl1its that have alltl\lractiollS tnathave been taken, the questions in this case ha,ve 'ilot been settled or adequately presented or considered, " 'and he therefqrerespectfully asks that all the 'points involved should be again considered and Complainants claim that the principlesannottncedand conclusions.reaohed in the prior decisions are correct, and should be followed · . ,lUI stated
..ltelatea.·.tQeJeritric: light and it consists-FIrst, In a lamp, having two or more sets of carbons, adapted by any suitable m('lans to buro successively,-tbat Is, one set after a09therj 8econd, 10 a la.mp baving set ad4ptelJ to move Independently in burntwo or moIfesetaof Ing andteeding j thlra, lamp havb1g'two or more sets of carbons, adapted eaph .f;j). bave operated and intluenced by the same electric current:fourth,in a lampbaving two sets of carbons, said carbons, by any SUitable means, beh:lg adapted to be separated disslmultaneously, whereby the voltaic arc between but a single set of carbons Is proi,n"tlle cOI;IfJ)j.natfon .with the carb.Qnsorcarbon holders of a lamp employIng two or more sets abov.e mentioned, of a suit.. able collar,:ttibe,or extended support, Within ()r up()nwhich the carbon or carboDt10lderto which 'it 18 applied shall rest 'and be supported." .'He states at the that his"InventfbD is not Ihnite&1,'b Its application to any specific form of lamp. It rna, be used In any form of voltaic arc and would need but a mere modification In mechanical form to be adaptable to an indefinite variety of the prese.n.t f()rms of. laJJ;lPll. ; My invenqon,comprehends, broadly, or "Where more t4al,l <:Ine set of carbons are employed. wherelD-say 111 alamphaV'tng two sets of carbous-one set of carbons will separate before the other. For' the pUrpose merely of showing and explaining the pJ,"inciples .of operatiQI1 and Use of my in\'ention, laball describe it in the form
BRUSH ELECTRIC CO. V. ELECTRIC IMP. CO.
967
showIl in the drawings, as applied to an electric lamp of the general type shown in United States letters patent No. 203,411, granted to me May 7. 1878, reissued May 20.1879, and numbered 8,718. Tbe leading feature of this type of regulator is that the carbon holder has a rod tube which slides through or past a friction Clutch, which clutch is operated upon to grasp and move said carbon rod or holder, and thus to separate the carbons, and produce the voltaic arc light." .'
Before quoting further from the specifications, a brief reference to the prior state of the art will be made, in order tMt the Uue character and extent of this invention may be better understood. In 1810, Sir Humphrey Davy, with the aid of a galvanic battery of 2,000 cells. produced a light between two pencilso! charcoal. This seems to have been the first dawn of a discovery whIch gave to the scientists of the world the thought of electric lighting. Unfortunately for Davy,he had Ilomechanism toadjnst his electrodes; and, owing to the great cost of his hattery, and the rapid combustionof the charcoal points,-lasting only lL few minutes,-his invention was of no commercial value for practica] use. In 1836 the more powerful battery of Daniellwas tried. In 1839 the nitric' acid battery of Grove was invented. In 1842 the Bunsen bat" tery was produced. No practical result, however,.in the way. yancement W,I,tS attained until 1844, wheQ Foucalt substituted pencils made of hard gas carbon for tpe chllrCoa,1 pencils of Davy, and thereby extended the duration of the light to some extent. But the expense was still too grea1. to justify any general use of the light, and· it was confined principally to laboratories, and for the experimental uses of scientists. In 1848, Archeran devised an imperfect regulating device, by means of in the samerel:awhich two vertical carbon electrodes were tive position. In 1857 the Holmes & Nollett machines were employed in producing the arc electric light in some of the lighthouses of France and England by the use of the Serrin lamp, which was a clockworking lamp, burning one pair of carbons, with a very expensive apparatus. It was not until 1870 that a current ofsufficieht strength to render electric lighting commercially practical by being generated at a small expense was attained. This was brought about by the invention of the of the arc lamps invented dynamo electric machine of Gramme. up to this time were suitable for the purpose of general illumination. The defendant has set up, Jor the purpose of showing the prior· state of the art, the following lamps and patents: The Archeran lamp, produced ih 1848; the English patent for the Staites lamp in 1853; the Hart lamp, Introduced in 1858; the Browning, Foucault, and Serrin lamps, in use prior to 1860; the patent issued in England to Louis Denayrouse, August 21, 1877; the United States patent to M. Day, Jr., February 24, 1874. The French patent granted to Khotinzky, March 19, 1875; the Rapief!' lamp, described in the Telegraphic.Journal and Electrical Review of London, August 15, 1878; and the French patent for the Mersanne & Bertins lamp. The patent of M. Day, Jr., is pleaded as an anticipation of the Brusb patent; but in the argument defendant admitted that it was not an ticipation in a technical sense, and was only relied upon as showing the state of the art. The Day patent was held not to be an anticipatiori' 01
068
.
vol. 52.
of the claimso(the Brush.patent in Brush Electric Co. v. lit Wayne Elm.*'ic Light Co., 40 Fed. Rep. 833.. Judge GRESHAM: correctly said "it Bru$¥t lamp, both in,coristl'uctionn:nd mode of operais 'expres'sed by B i10WN, J; ,ih Brush Electric ,14ght .&43 Fed: ,1';36, to which reference IS here made for a description of the Day patent, the French PHteJ,l,t the candle in the patent of Jabsufficiently, and, in my judgqorre,ctly, answer the argnment of detEmdant's counsel in relation Npne of the devices set.up by defendant contain the principle patent.. All of them were presented by the defendant in prIor suits institutedpy the Brush Electric Company, except tll,a £atent for the Mersallue & Bertins lamp, which does not inanynew principle ten,ding to,limit the field of invention that was open to Brul:!h. BRo'YN:,J., in referring to the in:ventions prior to those of 'Mr. ;Brush, very "Most of them, however, were directed to improvements in the material of which the,C8l'bons were made, inthllbrilliancy and steadiness of tne light itself, ,to imvovements upon th,e dynamos, and in the.mechanism by which the cllrbons werelleld in the same relative position dnring the process of combustion; ,One difficulty, however. remained to be overcome. The electrical resistance of the carbons' was such as to preclude the employment of very long rods, and consumptiun by burning away was hastened by their adjacent ends becoming highly heated to a considerable distance from the arc. This diffiCUlty Was partially remedied by covering the carbon pencils with a thin film of, cOpper, electricaHy deposited thel'eon. by which the electrical resistance of the ClIl"bons was materially decre!lsed, much longer rods were possible, and the lightmaiotained continuously for from 6 to 10 hours. This was insuffihowever, for Itll-night lighting, and necessitated the extinguishment of the lamp, and a renewal of the carbons at some time during the night, in order to keep up a continuous light."
Po-wer
'In,.tri\.cing the history of the prior state of the. art from 1810, it will be' oqserved thafscientific men, were continually at work trying to invent kjl)Q of a lamp that would automatically give such a light as would be'i3Jit.able for general use, and also .to discover, if possible, some means t:he burning of the light could be furtheiprolonged. Early in invepted a lamp which gave a steady light, and was suitable. for general use;, but only one could be burned on a single circuiL ShiH·t1y afterwards he invented the series lamp, whereby two or more lamps could be operated at one and the same time upon the same circuit. There still remained another and more important discovery to be made, which, as .before stated, had engaged the attention of the brightest inventive mintls for many years, without any successful relight automatically without sults, viz., how to produce a renewing the (Jarbons. ,Tqis discovery in the open field of invention was made by Mr. Brush in 1879, and for which he secured the patent in coptroversy, and gav!' to the world the most practical and useful lamp known to electrIcal science, arid which has proven to be of great value and benefit to the public. In the specifications he said, among other
BRUSH ELECTRIC CO. 11. ELECTRIC IMP. CO.
969
"I do not, in any degree limit myself to any specitlcmatter or mechanism for lifting, moving, or the carbon points or their holders, 80 long as the peculiar functions and results hereinafter to be specifled shall be accomplished. The lifter, D, in the present instance, is so formed that when it is raised it shaU'not operate upon the clamps, C, C'; simUltaneously, but shall lift first one'and then the other, (preferably the clamp, C, first. and C' second, for reasons which will hereinafter appear.) This function of dissimultaneous action upon the carbons or their holders, whereby one set of carbons shall be separated in advance of the other, constitutes the principal and most important feature of my present invention. In the lamp shown in the drawings the lifter. D, is actuated and controlled through the agency of the lamp, magnetic attraction due to the influence of the current and this is accomplished as follows: One, two, or more spools ot hollow helices, E, of insulated Wire, are placed in the circuit. Within whose cavities freely move cores, E /· The electric current, passing through the helices, E, operate to strongly draw up Within their cavities their respective cores, E', in the same manner as specified in my former patent, above referred to. The cores, E', are rigidly attached to a common bar. E2, and the upward and downward movement of this bar, due to the varying attraction of the helices; E. is imparted by a suitable link and lever connection, E3, E4, to the lifter, D. By this connection the lifter will have an up and dOwn movement in exact concert with cores, Ef, and it is apparent that this connection between magnet and lifter may: be indefinitely varied without any departure from my invention; and therefore, while preferring for many purposes the tion just specified, I do not propose to limit myself to its use. · · · The operation of my device, as thus far specified, is as follows: When the current :s not passing through the lamp, the positive and negative carbons Of each set, A, A', are in actual contact. When, now, a current is passed through the lamp, the magnetic attraction of the helices, E, will operate to raise the lifter, D. This lifter, operating upon the clamps, C, and C', tilts them, and causes them to clamp and lift tue carbon holders, B, B', and thus separate the carbons, and produce the voltaic arc light; but it will be espt!cially noticed that the lifting and separation of these carbons is not simultaneous. One pair is sep'1rated before the other; it matters not how little nor how short a time before. This separation breaks the circuit at that point, and the entire CUTrent is now passing through the unseparated pair of carbons, A'; and now, when the lifter, continuing to rise, separates these points, the voltaic arc will be established between them, and the light thus produced. It will be apparent by the foregoing that it is imposslble that both pairs of carbons. A, AI, should burn at once, for any inequality of weight or balance between them would result in one pair beinj:t separated before the other. and the voltaic arc would appear between the last-separated pair. This function, so far as I am aware, has never been accomplished by any previous invention; and by thus being able to burn independently, and one at a time, two or more carbons in a SIngle lamp, it is evident that a light may be constantly maintained for a prolonged period, without replacing the carbons or other manual interference. In the form of lamp shown. I can, with 12-inch carbons, maintain a steady and reliable light. without any manual interference whatever, for a period varying from fourteen to twenty hours." The claims of the patent are as follows: "(1) In an electric lamp, two or more pairs or sets of carbons, In combination with mechanism constructed to separate said pairs dissimultaneously or successiVely, substantially as and for the purpose specified. (2) In an electric lamp, two dt: mOle pairs or sets of carbons, in combination with mech· aorsm construc,ted to separate said pairs dissimultaneouslyor successively, and establishthe,electricligbt between the members of but one pair, {tuwit,
970
. ,-EPERAI, R,EPORI:ER,
the pair wh.ile the melllQel's of: tbe l"tlmaJning pair ,Or pairs are m!'inWml:d>"in,jf, :relation,lIubstantiaJly as shown.. (3). In an electric lamp i than one Pair or llet of carbons. the combination, with saidcarbonlletsorpairs., of mechanism impart to them independ1mt and movements. whereby tl,e betw;een the members of but one of said pairs or :sets at, a time, while the mentbers of the remaining pair or pairs are maiutained in 3 separate relation, substantially as shown.. (4) In a single electric lamp, two or n;lore pairs or illets,of carbons"all placed in circuit, so that when their members are in contact the current may pass freely through lI,)1 alike, ill combination .with mechanismconstructed to separate dissi1llultaneo\lsly or successively, SUbstantially as and for the purPQ118Ilbolwn, (0) In Iln IIle!Jtric lamp, more than one set or pair of carl,lonll-are the lifter, D,. 01' its eq uivalent, moved by any suitable upon said .carbons or carbon holders dissimulfor the purpose shown. (6) In or set of carbons are employed, its eaclllll'ill pair or set, said clamps, C, adapted or boldersdissimultanepusly or lIuccesas .a,.4 for the shown. (7) In an e,!ectrlc lamp, holqerand the mechanism said carlifter K,orlts equivalent, constructed to operate theaald mQving to sustain the weight of the carbon clUlbpn js:sufficlentlYCQnsumed Qr removed, substantially llll and' for the purp9se desci.'!lJed." !fia tbIs inventioll,of Mr. Brush, as. covered by his patent, Jl1l1imply that of jl.n modification of the singlecarbonlamp·'p,r.eviouslyinventedby him. This claim cannot be sustaiued .· ·.·..The Brush double-carbon'lamp operates .· in a materiallydifferent and' restilts, from llIly of the prior inveD)ampinvented hy Brush had but one solenoidQrml'gnet·.... His,double-carbQu lamp has two, so that it controls twopaiJ,'s instead of one. In the single-carbon lamp there is but one clutching aud feeding mechanism, and in the double lamp tllereare two, arid these are so combined with the other elements, and iurangedin a manner,thatthey perform new dqties in the double hgnp.:maCh clu.tch, it is true, lifts. its respective carbou, establishes anc;l contro],s the feed of the. carbons, as was the arc,. reg!llates done in the single-carbon lamp; bu,t, in addition to this, they serve to bring; the idle pair of carbons into contact, and then separate them, and estalYll13h·the arc at'an exactly premeditated time, immediately after the fii'st,pilJrqfcarbons'have consumed, and at which time the carbons of It W()uld have to be manually renewed. By this new functipI\ Qf the lind the mechanism,a new, distinct, and important. result is obtained. The' successive burning of the carbons. find a uniform and steady light, is secured throughout the consumption both pair of carbons, extending 14 to 20 hours, in such amahr1efthata steady and reliable light is produced between one pair of ca.tb9hS they have been consumed, and an equally good light t.he.·s¢cond .pair of car,9on,auntirthey have peen consumed. This luny"succesr>(ul., and beneficial resu.lt. is automatically accomplished hYit.hie successivearC'lfol1mjng. separation of the two
from
BRUSR 1!:LECTRIC
". ELEc:TRIC IMP.
971
pa,ir of carbons. ,fun,¢ti:on upon and feeding mechanis IIl is secu;r¢d by mah).taining. the carboI,lS:of. ode pair separated during 'the time that the other pair are consl;l:ming,so tha,tJhe current maybe sent thmugh either pair whenever they are called into operation. Another function is imposed upon the dttplex clutching and feeding mechanism of the lamp, which is to 'automatically adjust the two pairs of carbons when the current is first passed through the lamp preparatory to the formation of the arc, so that the arc is formed other pair is separated unbetween only one pair of carbons, while til required to burn. Still another function is imposed by the maintenance of arcs of equal lengths between the two pairs of carbons, and this is attained by compelling the regulating mechanism to support and carry the two carbon holders at all ti}Ues during the operation, of the lamp. It is evident at a glance that it more thana mere attachment to his single-carbon lamp to bring into existence the idea of imposing upon the regulating mechanism of a lamp the al1ditional duties, never before imposed, which produces a result. never accom plished. Counsel for defenqant has ably, intelligently, ingeniously, and exhaustively discussed the question as to the construction of this patent from three different standpoints, which are respectively denominated by by him (1) "the complaiqant's construction," (2) the "liberal tion," (3) the "legal construction." His contention is: (1) That under construction the invention· of Mr. Brush did not consist. in the mechanism which he described, but the "invention relates to eleptric lamps or regulators, and it consists, first,in a lamp, having two or more sets of carbons, adapted by any suitable ,means tohurn successively,-that is, one set after another;" that, talren in this broad unlimited sense, the patent is void. (2) That construction takes the real invention disclosed in the patent as" tho true its scope, notwithstanding any language contained in it, which would operate pf itself to give the claims either a wider or a narrower application; and that, taking the patent in this sense, the Wood double lamp used and operated by defendant, is not an infringement. (3) That the legal constr\lGtion applies to the patent the rule that any limitation put upon an application in the patent office by the applicant in orderto the patent is binding upon him in favor of the general public, and that, taken in this view, the claims ot' the patent are not infringed by the Wood double lamp. The proper construction to be given to the patent must be determined by the court, with due regard to the various provisionS of the patent law, the principles thereof as interpreted by the courts, and by ascertaining the true meaning of the language used in· the specifications and claims of the patent. TANEY, C. J., in O'Reilly v. Morae, 15 How. 62, iIi summing up the provisions of the act of congress, said: "Whoever discovers that a certain result will be produced in any art, machine,. manufacture, or composition of mattprbythe use of certain means, is entitled to a patent for it. prOVided hp specifies the means he uses ill a'manner so full and exact toat any OUtl sk illed ill tile science to wbicn it
REPORTE.R, vol. 52.
using .the qe.peclf1es, addition to, or subtraction frOm'them, produce precisely the result he describes; and. if this cannot; be done l)Y.the means he the patent is void; and lUt can be done, then the patent confers on bimthe exclusive right to use the means he specifies ta-:produce the result or effect he describes, and nothing more. And it makes DC) difference, in this respect, whether the effect is produced by chemicalllgency or combhlatiQn, or by the application of discoveries or principles in natt1ral philosophy known or unknown beft)re his invention. or by machinery acting altogether upollmechanical principles. In either case, he must describe the manner and process as above mentioned, and the end it accompIishelt;.A.nd any one may laWfully accomplish the same end without infringingthe patent if be uses means substantially different from tbose described." BruSh conceived a new idea, and stated it in his specifications in stich a plain way that it could be readilyadopted and employed by any orre"skilled in the, science to which it appertains," so as to lead to a prac,tie41and useful. result. He clearly described bis machine,-a lamp"Wand the principles thereof by which it could be distinguished fromiaH (lther'itiventions;and stated in copcise language what he consiBeted:to be the bestmodes to apply these principles, and in the claims pointed out the parts and improvements which he claimed as hisinventidn and discovery, and thus brought himself within the essentia] requirements of the patent law. Section 4888, Rev. St. U. S. In his he described but two modes-but declared that there were could be uS\'ld tbat would accomplish the same not only embraced the lamp, and modes of conresu1t. struction iUld operation, which' he described in his patent, but included all lamps which might be so constructed as to operate in substantially the sanie way, by any equivalent means, to accomplish the same results. By the express terms of the act of congress, the description of his lamp in his spebificlj.tions, and the language of his claims, he was entitled to a patent for his II invention or discovery," and his patent should be so construed as to give him all that he invented, discovered, /lnd claimed; nothingmore,and certainly nothing less. In determining the construction that ought to be given to the patent in controversy, it is the duty of the court to ascertain whether Brush was a pioneer O'r a mere improvedn the field of electrical inventions, and consialltly to bear in mind that his lamp has met the public want, and has long, been in general and BU,ccessful use. 8oXE,J" in sustaining the patent of Swan for a perforated plate for secondary '" fn approachtl)g this subject it is well to remember, as the, ,court has frequentlyhad occasion to remark before, tbat we are dealing with a comparatively new and abstrust' art,' where the most important results are said to folloW from clu\!lgea apparently of the most unimportant character. Complete success has not been attained, but, if we may credit the statements of those '}Tho are entitle4t9 speak ex ca,thedra on the subject, the rapid strides in that direction during the last decade are due to changesofform and material, wllich. in many other arts. would be insufficient to support invention. The substitution of one material for another in a doorknob is thf\ work oithe mechanic; the ;substitution of one material for another in secondary battery electrodes Hllly '801\'e a problem which will revolutionize the moti ve power of the w.odd,"
BRUSH ElLECTRIC CO.V. :'ELECTRIC IMP. CO.
973
This principle is directly applicable to this case: , "Before Brush entered the field, electric lamps had been contrived which btlifned two sets of carbons alternately, shifting the arc from one pair to the other at short intervals? making allashing, unsteady, and unsatisfactory light. The problem whicb Brush set himself to solve to secure the complete combustion of one pair of carbons before the arc was transferred to the other pair, and the transfer of the arc to the other pair by the automatic ac'tion of the electric current, so that no attendant was needed to light the second pair after the first pair was consumed; thus securing a lamp which would give a steady arc light of from 16 to 20 hours' duration. This he accomplished by his mechanism, which caused the dissimultaneous separation of the two pairs of carbons by, the automatic action of the electric current actuaUnghis separatillK devices, and a feeding device for bringing the carbons step forward in the art together as fast as they were consumed.. This was taken by Brush, and at the present stage of the art it seems that the inexorable law of the electric current reqUires that, when two or more pairs of carbons are to be bumed successIvely, the carbons of each pair must be dissimultaneously separated, and the arc.produced between the pair last separated., HaVing. done this for the art, Brush is entitled to cover all means ,equivalen,t to his own for obtaining the same result. ,one of which is a clockwork, feeding devic6.." 44 Fed. Rep. 285. When the discovery was made and explained to the public. it could readily be seen byottier inventive and mechanica.l minds that the IliIeans whereby the result was produced were very simple and plain, and that they could be accomplished by slight changes in the construction of the lamp. As was said by BROWN, J.: "One of the experimenters succeeds, while all the rest fail. After the one has succeeded. it is easy to go back into the limbo of these old failures, and. in the light of the successful machine, by perhaps slight changes. make these old abortive attempts do the work of the successful inventor. But it is the successful experimenter who has shown them the way, and he, and he alone, who is entitled to be called the inventor, and be protected by a patElnt." Brush should not be limited, restricted, confined, or narrowed down to the rights of a mere improver of an old machine. His invention was not, as defendant's counsel claims, "a pretty duplication of parts in an existing apparatus, another barrel on an old gun, a reversible point on an old plow, a supplemental weight in an old clock, an extra reservoir from an old lamp." He was not a mere adapter. He solved the problem in electrical soience that had never before been answered by con. trolling a force of nature in such a manner as to produce a continuous light without the aid of manual assistance, and he discovered and devised the means whereby these results could be successfully accomplished. When this problem was solved, it became apparent to himas it now is to others-that the same results could. be brought about by various changes that might be made in the construction of the lamp. Hence he said: "1 do not in any degree limit myself to. any specific method or mechanism for lifting, mOVing, or separating the carbon points. ortheir holders, so long ,as the pl'culiar functions and results herlJin,after to be specified Shall he ac,complished."
After minutely desoribing;the operationof:hiil lamp, of. motion to tbe .a.neleotri,¢; ,magnetic,attraotiQn ljtOd through'theexpensive lllttraction of heat; tlL:but added thaNhis function . ofhis',devitiemigbt"bi1' Oll.equivalent me,respect;' do not linlit rAy ..aS sho",n prior art, an,d case, tha.t:Brush was. a ,pioneer in thIS branch ,of electriCll.Lconstrlilction. Being,a. ,pioneer he .is entitled:t,o'81broadand Hbeml interpretation of his patent. McCormick v. Talfottt20 How.402jqam/merschbig T. 'SCamoni; 7 Fed.. 593; v:.SpencCr, 8,Fed, Rep.51li lM.achine v. Teague, 15 Fed. OityojBi+ffalo, 20 :Rep. 127; Manj3an,qrrjt",S2 Fed. Ma,cht'l-e LancaBter, 129 D. 8·. ,273,9 SUP'i,Ct. Rep. 299; Norton v.· Jemen, (9,th Circuit,) 7 U. 103,: 1 452,49 Fed: Rep. 859. The f l'iJ,I'eis that court:shttve no right to enlltrge a patent beyond'the scope ofitsdlahns as alloweq1;>ythe pll.fetlt,6fIice, and, when the terms of the claims in the patent are' cleat and crlstihct, the patentee is, of cot;!rse, hound by;them. But patents should be "construed liberallyI .in, lOOoordanae. with :thei design ,of the. constitution' and the patent laws.,oLtl;laUnited States, to promote the progress of the,liseful arts l and allow inventors to retain for their own use, not anything which is matter of common right, but what they themselves' have created. " Winans v. Denmead, J5.How. 841, and autbQrities there cited·.. ,.," Mere rigid technicalities l;lrre,tQbe unless there isa legal necessity for sustaining (Hr,tmilton.v.lves,6 Fisb. Pat. Cas.: 253, and authorities thereched;)and;"courts' should not be asllnte to'ltvoid inven-
lWoodb. &'Ml'53;)
.The con'teli'tiorlsb eai-neWy cdtinsel, that the first four claims of the patent are void, because they are for functions 'lWd'results, and, not for any$pecific .mechanisrIl, is directly, clearly, and :in-my opinion, answered in therprevious de.cisions sustaining .this, patent.:· B'f1,I,8h Electric Co.v;;t.,WayneElectric ,Light Co;, 40;'Fed.,'Rep.8-33,:said: . "The specillcalf()!l frhoohanlsmwhetebya :result may be accom'plished. andtbe claims aranot ,for. mere functl6ns; nor,1alr:ly construed ·. can to perform the same .· ,The clnimcoDstrued in <!onnectio,n with the means described in speciflcatio.il i,1l fqr an e!ectricarp two or more pail's of carbons lI're used; the 'a\ljustable car'llons of each' pair being independently regulh'ted"by one,and the same mechanism, 4ndiri which there is a , dissim ultaneous ,qr,sllccessive,separatlon of the pairs, weffected as to secure· ,to the continuollS,bl1rhingof one pair prior to .the estabHsllltlent of the arc be. ,pi'ir, ,'rhus. construed. the is limited t() the particnlar means described in the specification, and their eqJ;livaleuts. The second, third, and fourth claims also refer fo the particular mechanismdeaci'JiIletf'tn the specification'fdriblle accomplishment of results, covered by those'claims. They ate for combinations of specillc mechanisms. anel theirsubstat1tial equfvalents,and not fOr' reSUlts, irrespective of means. for their accomplishment."
BRUSH 1i:LECTltIC CO. 11. ELECTRIC .IMP. CO. BROWN, J., in Brush Electric Co. v. Western Electric Light & 43 Fed. Rep. 537, said: . ,
975
as for" a functional' result,since
the claimll are undoubh'dly oroad,they ought bot to..be interpreted there is insubstitutingone pair of barbons for another, and thus securing a successive combustion of two or more pairs.. It was done long before the Brush patent. and may still be done by manllalinterference by replacing one set of carbons with another. or by any mechanism which does not involve the dissimultaneous and dissimuUaneously separatinganfl feeding movement. What the claims purport to cover are. briefly, all forms of mechanism constructed to separate the two or more pairs or sets of carbons ·dissimultaneously' (a word coined for the occasion; but readily unders'tood) or successively, in order that the light may be established betweentb& members of but one pair or set at a time, while members of the remaining Pair are maintained in a relation. J;t is claimed by the defendant,however, that th.e disBimultaneonsly or BUCcessively.' contained inthe first six claims of the patent, refer only to the ex:· act 'lostant-the very pUn,ctum the separation of the carpons; and that. as the Scribner patent. under which the defendants are operat,ing, for the initial simultaneous separation of the carbons. there is 1)0 infringement, though the light is formed between but J;>air, the other being held in reserve to await consumption. If thiscontentioJ;l. be C9frect, then. it n.ecessar.ilY fO.1.10Ws that. Brush, WhO.'. 111 aCkDo. \\"'.16. d.ge.d to be th.e .l '.C ' .. .. inventor of the double cafbon, and whom defendant's ex:pert. Mr. Lockwood; fl;ankly (page 243)tobe justly regarded as having done more than anyone. else to make electric arc lighting on a large scale a practical success, sMured by his patent the mere shade of an idea,-a wholly immaterial and useless feature,-aband!loing to the world all that was really valuable in his . invention." It is true that neither of the judges reviewed the case of v.
among. c,a13es, * * * universally respected but rarely read;" but it is fair to assume, in justice to the learned oounsel who argued the case for the defendants before Judges GREsHAM and BLODGETT, that he did not fail to urge the authority of that case against the validity of the claims of this patent with the same force and ability that characterized his argument in this case. I have carefully read the exhaustive and clear opinion of TANEY, C. J., in O'Reilly v. Morse, and the opinions of th.;l supreme court in Teleplwne Cases. 126U. S. 1,8 Sup. Ct. Rep. and Tilghman v. Proetor, 102 U.S. 707, and also the pioneer case of Neilson v. Harford, 8 Mees. & W. 806, decided in 1841, and the other and relied upon by defendants. In the Bell TelephoneCaSe6 cases the case of O'Reilly v. Morse was relied upon to defeat the Bell patent. The fifth claim, whiC\h was there the subject of a fierce contest, reads as follows: "The method of. and apparatus for, transmitting vocal 01' other sounds telegraphically. as herein described. by causing electrical undulations. similar in form to the vibrations of the air accompanying the said vocal or other sounds. substantially as sat forth." WAITE,
Morse, 15 How. 62, which defendant claims is a "sort of Paradise Lost
C. J., in delivering the opinion of the court, said:
current called · electro-magnetism,' howf'ver de\'tlloped. for making or print-
"IbO'Reilly v. · Worse,15 How. 62. it was decided that a claim In broad (pl\ge 86) for the use of the motive power of the elecLric 01' galvanic
916
I'EDEBAL BEPOBTEB,
ingintelligible characters. 'letters. or signs at anydistances.although ·a new application of that power.' first made by Morse. was void, because (page 120) was a .claim ·for a for an produced by the !lse of electro-magnecessary produce it;' hut netism.distinct .from the process or 85) for · making use of the motive. power of when action of such current or currents, substantlally as set forth descrii>tipI!, ... *. * as means of operating or giving motlodtp itl!lchinery, Which ,may be to imprint signals upon paper or other suititble n:laterial. or to, l>rq'dtice sOUIids in any desired manner. fol' the purpose'j>f:t'elegraphic cl,).lritplinication at any distances.' was sustained. The effectat decision wlis" therefore. that use of 'Illaghetism as a motive power, without regard'tQ tl,1e particular process with which,itwas connected In tllep'Btent. c01,lld claimed, but that its use inJhlltponnection could. calle is not for the llse of a, electri.city in Its, as It but forputtmga contmuous currei(t;·tna clospd, circ(lit; intci a' cert&i(l' specified conditiQn suited to the of vocal and!, oth\lr' soullds.· and using it in that condition for ·. So as,ttpl',esent ,knbwJ:l' without ,change in Its conditIon. It WIll not sexve as a medium for the speech. but, it' will:" Bel1 was til6 first to discover .thiS fact. and liow to'put a what he is its use in ,that ror that ptirpose,just as Morse ?Iitimed his current in his coni\l'tI'OI1,fOf, Hill in Morse's Case to defeat cIailii,(ol( the contrary, Is. ,In all ,rps:pects sustained by that ,authority. It m,ay calin,ot be used at all tor the transmission of speech. way :Bel1 has' dillcovered·. and that, therefore, practkally, his patenttdves hiIP it.s.£'xclustve use fen that purpose; but)1)at does not make lJlscla'llii'bl1Ej "fortM use of eleclricity.dlstinctfrom the particular process with which it is connected in his patent. It will. if true, show more clearly thegrea.t;tmportall!,eof his but it will not invalidate his patent." There is' no principle announced in this or the other cases that can itlthe light of all the facts in this case,to be in opposifairly tion to'the views 1 haveiexpressed. In all that has been said the fact has not :besn oJJel'looked'that Brush did not receive his patent without a contest in the patent office. The file wrapper Shows that the claims we have heen discussing, as at first presented, were as functional, and that the language ,of the claims was twice slightly changed. But ';tn examination of the claims as firstpresente'd and as finally allowed clearly shQwS that ·no sub'stantial made in ' any essential feature of ,either ofSaid claims. The record shows that the examiner in the patent office firiallyyielded to the views expressed by the patentee, and 'ltllo\Vl;ld the cl1aims in such language as to express the theory contended for:byMr. ;Brush. 'The truth is that Brush never consented to any limitationbfhis claims, and no limitation was, in fact, made, although the phraseology was, as before stated, slightly changed. Dur·· ing the contest in tire patent office he took occasion, in person and by counsel, 'to.exphtin at great length and with remarkable ,dearness the method ofn'iovement to which he for the first time subJected the electrodes of a lam p, and showed how the two pairs of carbons are burned; that only oI1e set of,<ia:rbonsbOuld be burned at a time, and 'that one set was always bound to ,burn; ,and particularly described the special functions effected by'theindependently acting mechanism when the lamp i
977
is first put into operation, viz., the dissimultaneous separation of the carbons, and the establishment of the light between one pair only. I quote from the argument then made by Brush's counsel: "It is this peculiar mode of moving the carbons that produces this splendid result. and that constitutes the real essence and fact of Brush's invention. When you have this new movement, you have the all : for the mere means of effecting Said movements becomes, after the conception of the real invention, a matter of no more than mechanical ingenuity. It is true that many forms, of device xpay by devised for carrying out Brush's invention, and we will grant that they may all be patentable; but everyone of them mllst be fundamentally tributary to this pioneer invention of Mr. Brush. The mOOeof movement is his. It is this mode, and not the mechanism, that constitutes this pioneer discovery: for Brush has here found out this new principle of moving his multiple carbon sets, and the result is something the world has never b,efore seen, and something that the world very much wants." The claim of defendant's counsel that Brush accepted a· limitation of his claims is without any substantial foundation. Under the construction which has been given to the patent, it necessarily follows, in my opinion, thftt the Wood lamp clearly embodies the invention of Brush, and is an infringement of his True, there is a difference in the construction of the lamps, Clockwork in the Wood lamp<is substituted for the clutch mechanism of the Brush lamp, as was suggested in the patent might be done. But an inspection of the working of each lamp shows that both lamps operate in substantially the same way. The operation of each lamp is due to precisely the same caUses and forces. They both automatically bring the idle carbon into contact with its mate ,in the same way. by the same mode of operation,by the same action of the current, and' accomplish identically the same Every arc lamp performs three distinct functions: (l)The establishment of the arc; (2) the regulation of the length of the arc; (3) the feeding of the carbon as it is consumed. The Brush lamp has two separate and independently actuated clamps, which operate as clutches or latches, and when they are tilted and raised each clamp engages its smooth carbon rod, lifting it' and its attached carbon, and thus separating the carbons and establishing the arc. The ring clamp or clutch associated with one of the pairs of carbons serves as a latch to hang up the feeding carbon of the idle pair during the entire time that the burning pair of carbons are consuming and are being regulated and fed. The regulation. of the length of the arc is effected by the ring clamp or clutch raising or lowering the carbon just as much as may be necessary to compensate for the fluctuation ofthe strength of the current,or the imperfections in the carbon without necessarily feeding the carbon. The feeding of the carbon is effected by the varying frictional contact of the clamp or clutch with the smooth carbon rod. 'When this clamp descends, so that it impinges upon the floor of the lamp, it assumes a lesser angle of inclination to the rod,and its bite on the rod slightly diminishes, so as to allow the rod to slide or slip very slowly through 'the lamp, and thus feed the carbon. The two ring clamps operate, in conjunction with the floor of the lamp, as two v.52F;no.11-62
978
"0"
JEDERAL REPQR'1'J!lR,'
se}?arate feeding mechaniSms. ;, When one is ,operating, the other is idlej\a:nd 'Uice VerBa." ,',', ,. '" , Now, let us briefly examine theWood,lamp. It has. the two clamps irJ...*eshlj.peof, two which respectively rack bars (If their clu"bon holdel'S'; and when the i pinion is raisedbyacfjonofthe magnetic mechanism oithe lamp, it 'anrl raises its catbon rod and the'carbon attached to it, and in 'Ill"ll'J1ner eStlI,blishes the arc. The little final pinion or clutch assaOf the, ,pllirs'(lf carbons also as latch ,to hang up duripg the, entire time the ,.C)ther carbon regulated and fed until it has been consumed. The regulation of the length of the arc ,is' accomplishedby the pinion orelutch engaging' itarack bar, and ,lowering 'eve! little, as may 'beneoessary to compensate fdr the fluctuafibns in the strength of 'the current or imperfeotionsiinthe' carbon. without necessarily feeding the carbon. The feeding of the carbon is accomplished by retarding or checking the action of theblQ.tohing pinion,whi<:lh engages the ,rack bar ion, ,tbecarbon rod. "lith an escapement This is \bronghtabout by:.a train of gearing , comm,onto both clutohing pinions.' The singlestopofthe Wood lamp is eqtilvitlenttQ the floor in the Brush lamp, which operates to release, or trip the feeding mechanism of each palJ', of carbons. When one is fed, the combined clutching and feeding pinionJassociated with! the: other caJ'bonis idle, and vice versa. The two pinioDs,oHhe Woodlam'p seem to be as much Jwo separate and distinct feedingtmechanismsas,li.rethe. two ring clamps of :Brush lamp. The funotions and resUlts accomplished by the ring clamps of the one lamp, and thcd6ljlding pinions oftheother, mAke them substantially identical. I am therefore of opiniQu'that all of the <llaims ofthe patent have been infringed,and this view'is certainly sustained by the authorities. The oontention of defendant's counsel,that the lam ps ,are essentially different, ,in, that (1) the Brush lamp employs two feeding m,echanisms, while the ,Wood lamp bas but one, that operates both carbonpairsj (2) that tihe' Bru$hJamp operates both carbon pairs,and> automatically calls the second pair of carbons<into function after the, first pairis consumed, electrically, while theW®d lamp does this work meplilanicallYj (3) that the Bfullh"Jamp imparts dissimultaneoull initial separation to its two pair of whiletbe Wood lamp separates the carbons of one pair only, the'C9.l'bc)Us of thao.ther pair having been manually separated and latched uphyrthelamp trimmer before the lamp iaput into operation, has been fully, and,: J believe. correctly, ,answered adversely to 1efendant in the previous decisions. , The operation described, by the \'ords "diesimultaneo!ls,ol' successively," as uSlild in the claims, of patent. that separation which results in the, production of a single Itrc." > 43 Fed. ltep. ,533. '" . In BTU8hEkctric Co.v.Ft. Wayne Electric Co., 44 Fed. Rep. 284, where the seriously contested that of infringement,;BwDGETT, J;, in: delivering the opinion of,the court, said: "The lamp. that of Brush. is I'duplex lamp. organized to burn two 01" more pairs of carbons successively; but the feeding device of the
BRU8H'ELECTRrO
co.".
ELECTRIC ,IMP. CO.
·979
Wood lamp is partially actuated by clockwork, instead of its being operated entirely by action of cu.r,ret;lt, as in the ,Brpsh., ,In the Wood lamp, however, the clockwork mechanism is brought into action and controlled by the electric current. The feature ot the Brush lamp is the arrangement of the feeding mechanism, 80 that the carbons of the two pairs shall be dissimultaneously separated fOf,}he purpose of forming the arc; and that, after the arc is formed, one of the carbons of the pair between which the arc is formed shall be fed towards the other as fast as it is consumed, so as to preserve a steady and uniform light; and that when the first pair of car· bons ill fully consumed, the clment is automatically transferred to the other pair, and the arc is formed between them, which ,are in turn fed together by the feeding device until consumed. The Wood lamp has the same characteristics. The carbons of eacqpair are dissimuluaneouslyseparllted, and the arc is formed by the action of the current passing through magnetic coils, as is done in the Brush lamp'; but the feeding, as the burning carbons are conlumed, ill regulated in Wood's lamp ,by clockwork. It does not seem to UR that the interposition of this clock work to do the feeding after the arc is formedess6ntially differentla,tes the Wood device from. that of Brush. The electric current is the efficient motor in both lamps for forming the arc and controlling the action of the feeding mechanisms. ... ... ... It was strenuously urged. by the able counsel for the defendant, both in his oral and printed that the Brush patent shows two feeding devices, while the Wood lamp ShoWS but one feeding device or mechanism., This position. if correct, would' bardly, we think, answer the charge of infringemellt;but we do not entlrelyagretfwith the learned counsel in his position Wood has only one feeding device. The clockwork mechanism of Wood is practically as muchasepal'ate device for pair carbons as the clutch mechanism of Brush. for, while Wood's clockwork is made to feed each pair of carbons in turn, it feeds the first by'one pinion, and the next one by another pinion. after the arc ,has been pro(1nced pair by the action ,of the electric current; ,thereby lQaking his device as much a duplex feeding device as is that of Brush. "The feature of the Wood lamp which allows the attendant, when helights the lampl or puts the lamp in circuit, the carbons of one pair by hand, instead of allowing that to be done by the operation of the electric current, as is done by Brush. does not, it seems to us, in any degree evade 'the Brustl'pat.ent, because it cleal'ly appears from the proof and operation of the machine$,'al!exhibited upon the hearing of the motion. that, if the attendant did up the upper carbon of one pair, the machine itself would automatically do so, the same as it is done in the Brush lamp; and the manual separation of one pair of carbons, even before the lamp is lighted. is nothing but the adoption of Brush'S,dissimultaneOQ8 law, and it,leaveB the arc to be all formed between the pair of carbons last separated. In this, as in cases of infringement, there are slight differences in mode of construction and devices for the result accomplished by the patent. 1t is rare that we find an infringing machine which is copied with Chinese fidelity from that which it is claimed to infringe, but the infringers always endeavor to escape the charge ot infringement by some modifications which shall apparently cause their .machhle to differ from, ,that of the patentee. The essential thing, however; to be considered in all such cases is whether the principle embodied and claimed in the patent has. been substantially used by the defendant, and, if we find that it has been so SUbstantially used, it is the duty of the court to protect the patentee, however ingenious may be the mode of infringement." , Complainant is entitled to a decree, anq. to a perpetual injunction. LetCQunsel for complainant prepare, and in due time submit, the findings.
980
FEDERAL REPORTER/Val.
52. LOCK
,CoRBIN CABJNET.LOCK
Co. .,·· ')nAGLE
'Co.
(Circuit Oourt, 1).' OOmtectiCu,t.,,' November 15, 1892.)
No. 519.
t.
PATENTS FOR
In letter!' patent No. 285,916,.1ssued October!2,1883, to Frank W. Mix, for a trunk lock, the first and fifth bptll cover the of a hasp plate, a hasp hinged thereto, the keeper plate, the lock bolt or lock mechanism, and the dowel pin aud socket. or simUarmealis of interlocking the plates. The first claim inC,ludes,'"i,U, ditlon,a. spriug ,c,onstan,tlY P,r8ll11ing the h,asp outw"ard. Held, that these oWmswere autioipated by the Star which has all these elements; and it jB immaterial that lIi;fters from the' article in that the lock is not mounted upon the hasp MBp plate, and, that there is no holdlrlg, protection and BOO1fet other thau the staple, which takes directly into the lock 'proper, and is entgaKed by the lock bolt, for these features 1l0t iucluded in Buchclaims. ad,
LOOKS.
or
9. libME.,.,.COMBINATION-PRIOR ART.
,first claim of No, 337;,·]87, issued March 2,1886" to Frank W. }lix, for a trunk lqck; coyers 'a, hasp plate I'lld a lock plate, the Ildjacent edges of "whten are ctinstruete'd,,'to 'interlock with each, other,in combination with a hasp · hinged to the hasp plate; and'provided on its free end with a locik,which is received ou,p.. pr frame in I1late, set forth,": He.ld, that as all \I. cLaim is top QI;Oad to be sustainediu vil/w of the prior staW:pf the att, as sllown y the "Star" loCk; the Jones patent :eto.; 44,869, Novemberl,lB64;the Uittiug patent, No. 62,453, Februarvg6, 1867; ,the'Terry patent. No. 11r7,l88, September 6, 18'llhthe Hillebrand&Woife patent, NO'. October Haskell pateut., No. 214,252, 15,1879; and the Grouoh patent, No. 7,1880. , : 'l'he' claim ooversahasp plate "seoured to the cover of the trunk, " and a look plate'''liIeoured to the body," the two plates extending to the edges of the oover and having a cup or frame for the reception ot the loc!t.,:which is carriell,on ,the free ,en4 of tbe hasp, hasp ,being" hinged to the a considerable distance above its lower edge." Thf'l claim concludes 'with'tMwords "substahtially as set forth," and in the specifications the hasp is described as being "spring-pressed." Held, that the claim must be limited by this element,all,c;1bythe, element that the, cup shall be so shaped as to receive and proteQt both the hasp l.ock and the h"sP; ;:Ind that, as thus restricted, giving presumption of validityariSip:g from the issuance of the patent, theolaim is valid all prOdu'6lng a new and usefUl result·
8. SAME.::·:qrILITY. ,
... SAMlll"-UTILITY.
iWhen,libll,existence ot Invention is doubtful, the faot of utility: Ejhould have great of the Patent. Smith v. Co., 93U. S.486; Washburn' & Moen Ma1l.uj'g 00. v. Beat'Em Barbed Wire Co., 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. -.:43, 143 U. S. 275; Gandy v. BelUna 00., 12'sup: Ct. Rep. 598, 148 U. S. 587; and Topliff v. Topliff, 12 Sup. Ct. 145U. S. 156,-followed.
In ant.
','
Bill for:infringementofpattmts. for ,(lOll
Decree for complain-
Wilmarth
n.,' Thur8ton" for defendant.
TOWNSEND,' ,Diatrict,'Judge. This isa suit in equity; 'brought for the infrl.ngem,entofletterspatent No. 285,9i6,'dated 2, 1883, and in trunk locks, No. 337 ,l81 "dated March' 2, o;iginally grl1-nted to Frank W. Mix,and by him assigned to the complainant.: The defenses as to both patents are anticipation and want of patentable invention. , The object'of the inveriHon; in both patents is to make the lock serve the double'ptirpo'se oflockingthe trunk! and of preventing lateral move-
Advertisement
