,,In a,ocordanoe 'with the ,sti llint wcut{)ry deeree, for' the complaine.nt for .accQUnt;, :tJae j,l.lhQtion 'heretof9re, granted to untilifurther!
i
.
,'NdirE;' See l'uekerv: BtJrditt, 5 FE]), REP; 808, attd'1'ltekclr ,V'.iCot-bitt, ld. ,81l1. j', ill . Ii ,'I' 'j) "I ,
,
t;l '/
·jL' ... , 't; ::/.'
!'
: '., 'I'
'I
Iftp.d, Qth611J i. .
S.iJ. NCtiJ TO " '. , I't ,-',
tof1. .; 1 f 1
. ; _: ":'
t ,.
,ntnuO:ry 22,iSS1.j!·:lJ,i (I
'" '
d 2J
'j"
i"
\.
, · It is' of 'rio uencll'that' It re·issue 'sia tes that, hom 1. j i' found in themachi'ne Wbith, ,,·HiI iWt i)l &. way·&.tid ,) ',effect wJilln, origiijtJ dill; not com', i l)in,atjons or of.ope,-, ,ra,tlOu and sal\'! resqHs wou)d fp1tow,pN)Vlded the sa.ld combinations lin in a ltlachine ijhade 'il:hcord.lrig ttl tlie Jtlrili: ' ',' i1scriptlon :inthe'orighial pa1ient, 'or'provwed the 'ofl overa.. r (J i' : tignl!-p.dthe ,,; i· ,J'
_
"
, I
_.
',t-,
f
W?ll$
j ).
FRIl'lGEMENT. . '
.'
6'. t25; 'khmted' to J olib. i ..'.,. . . ,'.
I
. '.
'.
'
:
'cembef 12' 1865, iforaI1""rrnfi'liigehldnll Ji iri SflW;iJ'lgmaehlheS','U1I,eld f _ ·· i in/'rir;gea, 1l1th!>ugh c.wt"'in· IIP\lCljft.¢.deyiMIil tn · Lfl int:!!l, ill; ,tpe r )ql" InyentlOns,-[ .D. ., , · :- )'i - ,"r.," ' .., " (" , ' J ; j'1 0\. - -,' i i /,r , ' ,I .
" 0:801'.[le Gifford, and Solomon .J, Gordon, lilt I'
fl
Wiiliam,H; McDouga14 for defendant.",? H r r ! . · ) · ;«(r This sllit iii! brought letters 1l3otent No., 2,125, granted! to ,J Decemoor.' 121 t 1B65j' for an "improvemarit:in'6ew.ing maclWres,;" (-the orighml f pstBrit,hlliviiIg.been·'granted .to S'; 1849jandi e'Xtehded: fur seven'yearflfrdmMay .8; 1863) and·!re<issueditb ,him temb61' .22; the pateIit;'haNing an congress approiVsd lUlly t14; 1870ji'(f16i St·. af.;I!.iail'ge" 65'6i) ·extendedrfdr.,seven yearsThia ;same: '1'e-iBsue 1fu; P'VUerJ'h Braunsd!ilip'78BUitchfJ andom lBAdlelder: ton, 11 Blatchf. 304.. Ci,NumerouSJ questiOns raised ·'ifi' I the> :J,BtATCHFORD/ C.' JI'
J'EDElUiL BJlPCffiTEB.
pres0nt case pQ;sse'd nponin those cases to the defendants therein. There are 14elaims in the re-issue. In the 'Braunsdorf' suit' the' defendant's' machine was thelEtna machine, and was ,heldtQ infringe claims 1, 2,,8, 4,5, 6, and 11. In the Moulton suit the defendant's machine was the Whitney machine, and was held to infringe all the claims. The lEtna machine Iiadua wheel feed. The Whitney machine had Allen B. Wilson's four-motion feed. The defendan'1t"'g machine :iii" tWe lpi'eserit case infringes all the ,the for that the re-issue is not for the same invention as the original patent, andtllanbere"issne describe's and 'Claims niore than expert witness for, thephtintiffs,'itastifiesthat every impl10vement thwt is speCified' in' th'e rei-issue is found in the specificatidn,alld "There is no, ,of this. This beiD;g,sol it follows,. necessarily" that every' comhiQation,described in the re-issue as 'performing' a 'gi'veno'ffibEl 'existed intlie' machine described and"sh6wn'in' th:e :specification' and' drawings 'of th\) andpe:rf9rmed".in, a in Jtccordance with the ,;specification and draWings of ,the original patent, the same office that it performs in a machine construct'ed in aicdordance With the speeificatiori.i'and drawingiJ of the re-issue. Therefore, every such combination might have been patented in the original patentl, by a proper claim. If so, not only wasil, re-issue proper, but a re-issuein the, form gra.nted. It iSi of no consequence' that the re-issue stateslthat certain combinations are .found in the machine whichwiIla.et iniacertain way certain results,when the orlginal did not j state that such combina-, tions werefotind there; or ftl.iJed to statetha:t said modes of operation and sam results >would. follow Rrovided the said i:nJ.adt';exis.ted ina. machine made accdrding to' the dl'l\>wingS'(aJid,;description in the original:patent,' or provided. the ,said ,modes ·of. opell&timi:andf the said results in fact fllllo'W.ed in a machine. 80' made. .To supply suoh;defeots is tnevery object and't:>ffice of'are.is&ue·.
·PO:TTBBV. S'rlDWART.
It lavery clear that, the c'Mved:pjeo81fof.metai,jn>th.e Bachelder maohine ,aetsnoil'onlyJdJ idischeirge,the plothIfrom the teeth: of the tihetddth '8Ifterit is: discharged.. IHhattbeliro, .. ing,plaie in the and to setforthitEhoffi.ee although the original ,fa;ileiUodo sO; andpindeed;.bedausethe original so i failed, its' OffiMI.itl.ali:sohatging!theelothlbeing .also set forth .in· the re-issue.. : SO,iMSOllllll,' to ther pressure; roller. It· is, in fact; -according to the deactiption' and drawingaof the patent; a yieldingpr6l8sUl'e'roll-el':i ];t:is),so ,oalledin there-islJue,but· not in the, i caUed::in,the original a ·. It ,was call it yielding, ,the re·issue!aliO .IUs c9TItended for the defendo;htdrhathis ;maohine cannot b,e·:held to infringefOl': ,that the ispe(}i'fia devices fdUJid'init were notUrnb;WDior4n, use'a,t theidate;of Bachelder.'s· invantions.:Thelspebifill: devio'es' espe.cially"me. ferredto aie the four'motiOll. feed and, the;preiliser.foot.: :.But the four-motion. feed:in .the\defehda:nt's maehine advances4he material robe 'served,regularlylltllld Horizontally, ,by an:. inter. mittent motion, over,an.;l' upon the Bur· fade through which ·the nee.dle acts/and overi>imd"u:pon, the supporting bed: by' which the [material is ,s'IIpported; a.!J.dde. mers it automatically;. without se#mgrto.:be stopped for the purpoSe: ,6f attachiilgfres.h portions .ofdhe material. !'The,teeth of, thei£eed·bar ,project,tb:rough,:aslot in the ,hori,'IOntal plate or ,holdingslirface through which,.the needle acts, and engage with'ithe material. andc'ompel it to advance whentbe feed is- IDovedforward; In the Bachelder machine the feed is a belt with points, which penetrate the materiaL andearry it forward, intermittently, an.d is. returned,;after delivering the matel1ial fed, by passing around rollers out of eonpact with the material. .The defendant's feed-bar mov6sdireotly baokward; after· dropping out of contact with the material. But,in respect: to supporting the horizontally while it, is being fed, and taking hold ofihe material and advancing it :by a regular, automatic, intermittent motion over and. upon the horizontal
.1'1llDlIRAlJ REPORTEIl.
:holding ·th"ougp iwhioh the: needle .aots, .afresh porta'ken>holikbhtn\lillin" equal: portion, deli,veJled tion' 'stWthiai!td: perpetuallYJdeliti&ripgi the' material' en :roo.eiving'plllJie,uio:,tl1J:atranyiltmgthrJOf seam desi«dmat' he. ;flldthrough 'alnd' during: thecontinuousi action of tbemachirie, thEdwo feeds' pln1Glim thai, same operations in the same !way, and!by the same meims. These operatiollshacl not been'performoo byanyfeed,incombination,witf): the other-things' it:)is!coorlbined with in. the Bachelder machine, before B'lIIIe'llelder invented'hil! :,·This being; feed\ while the ,operations scnpetformed'(pyit axe,' retaiued,llmay' be pateqtable in ::respect to doingsoinethlifng by: the :use of it which 'the Bachelder feed Wouldnot:do!;'but it oannbtbeusea to pedotm theoperntions rmerr!3d uta withoUt.irivading Ba.ch13lde!r's rights.{. To:, say that ·thi9!nnprovement:,iniAJhe,: feed may be' 11 sed, because it i.twhichldid leads nec-essarily ,to ,the, conclusion that if those features did eiiat ,before Bachelder"s feed,,'i:t' could riot be used. Yet,if those' featl1:tesdid·exisir'l:Jefore Bachelder's feeeUlhey could,of course,'lie useda.lways ris argainsfJ any olaim under Baehelder's feed; 'j'l3adhelder.cannot.interfere witb toose features, ;so ,fat as ,they db not' :concern 'thetlllisebes with performance,! in substantiaUyth.e: ,same way, and 'by sl1bstahtialIy, mear1s, of"thej,saine· operations' whioh) his perform:;,but;iif: they dacbncern themselves with such 'peTrerman(\e, h,e can interfere with ,them for tbe very reason that they did not exist before his invention; while, if they had existed before his invention; be clearly could not interrere ;with thetri.· The same remarks ,apply to' the presser-foot intbe defend1tiltB ' machine.' It'aid,s in feeding,' ami acts as a stripper,; but it'also lperformd'he Bame operation,; in the same way; thatis performed by the yielding pressure-holder of the Baohelder ·mach,inejoh.'esting on the upper surface of the material, and. holding it, to beFIJeneath on which it is supported; and 8idapting jtself; tq :the:vl!liTiations in the thickness of the material. . The fact that it is. a Toller in the Bachelder machine,
919 and is hot-a;, l'(}ller:in the' dg 'oUno iniportanie;,that ,being amereimatter of by weightin the former, and by' a.! spring inf the n<>diffetence. On ,the)qllestion of. it issll fficient,to say that none of the> cbcim,sof' the .Bachelder patent are, anticipated by .Thimdnier,';orHowe;or Motley & Johnson, or Q)nant; The claims of for combinations<:,f mechanism. Those combinllitions havffimecessarily, certain functions and modes of operation/whiehaa-e seUorthin tnt specification. .But the' claims,(a.re· not to functions or results, The' combinationflin ,any.infringing machine niust j of course, to infringe, have the same fUhctions a.ndmodes of operation which the Baehelder combinati<>ns' have; but, in addition, the means must be substaritiallythe same. There must be. a decree for the plaintiffs as to all the elaims.
KNAPP
v.J OUBERT; 1
and
otqers·. I ,
·
,I
(Circuit Court, N. D,Ne'IJJ;York. April,1881.)· ,.
1.
CoMBINATION PATENT-MECHANICAL BUCKBOARD WAGONS. . '
IN , . .
The sUbject of the complainant's patent was 'an improvement In a sustaining sllringQr spring!! were. ployed to supplement the functions of the at its center of pressure, and yielding with it at its ends, in respOnse to'the pressure at the center. Held, that, as the complainant was the 'first to employ the l!lutaining spring for the pecuuliarfunction'Which it performe4, he was to be protect,ed not only in the partif:ulllr devices which lle employed for that purpose,blit against all other devices which were the meehanieal'equivalents ofhis.":"[En. '
N. DavenpOT.l". for compilliinant. , EsekOowen, .for defendants. , WALLACE, D. J. I am. of opinion tliatthe.defendants' buckboard' wagon, manufactured under;their ,patent of Janufj,ry, 27,1880,,is an infringement. of tbe complainant's patent of l?eptElmber' 29, 1874:. The imbject Of "the compla.inant's