236
FEDERAL REPORTER. ARAM and others v. MOLINE WAGON Co. 'Circuit Court, N. D. Illinois. 1883.)
1.
PATENTS FOR INVEKTIONS-All'TICIPATION-PATENT
No. 127,211 SUSTAINED. Paleut No. 127,211, granted to Jonathan G. Aram and Hollert S. Williams, May 28, 1872, for an improvement in machines for turning carriage axles, compared with the patents granted August 16, 1870, to William H. Heffley and David Barb, patent No. 130,782, issued to Reuben Zeider, August 20,1872, and a machine invented by Thomas Blanchard, and held not anticipated by such inventions, and not void. for want of novelty.
2.
SAME-CI·.UM-INFRINGEMENT.
The new thing that plaintiff invented was the pivoted bar, carrying the knitc npon one end, and with its motions controlled by the revolutions of the other end within the hollow pattern; but, to make this work effectively, he combined with it certain old and well-known mechanical devices, such as the feed-screw, sliding fulcrum block, slide-ways, and gearing-wheels, by which the fulcrum block and pivoted bar were to be revolved; and the claim in his patent should not be construed as a mere combination claim of old elements, but as a claim for the pivoted bar, which was Ii new element brought into the art by him and made efficient when used with these older devices, and in this view of the claim his invention is infringed by the machine of defendants.
In. Equity. .John G. Manahan ana Charles H. Roberts, for complainants. Rowland Cox and Bann'ing et Banning, for defendant. BLODGETT, J. This is a bill in equity to enjoin infringement of ltters patent to Jonath/1n G. Aram and Robert S. Williams, No. 127,211, dated May 28, 1872, for an improvement in machines for turning carriage axles,; and for profits and damages. The defenses relied upon are: First, that complainants' patent is void for want of ,second, that defendant does not infringe. The use to, which complainants' device has, so far, been applied is for turning the ends of wagona.xles, so that they will accurately fit .into the thimble skeins; although it may, perhaps, as snggested by the inventor, be utilized for many other purposl'ls. The distinguishing feature of the Aram machine is a bar pivoted at its longitudinal center, one end of which carries the cutting tool and the other end revolves inside of the thimble, or pattern, which is intended to fit the axle to ,be shaped; the principle upon which the machine operates beiqg that the end of the bar carrying the cutter will describe the. same or eccentric movement as the other end of the bar moving within the' hollow pattern, exoept .that the cutter end will move in the reverse direction 'from the end within the pattern, so that if there is a bulge or enlargement within the patteru,
!.R!.M
v.
MOLINE WAGON 00.
287
a corresponding knob' or enlargement will be iurned upon the stick or article to be operated upon, thereby shaping the article turned so that its external surface corresponds to the internal surface of the pattern. Upon the issue of want of novelty the defendant relies upon-First, the patent granted by the United States, August 16, 1810, to Will· iam H. Remey and David Barb, for an improved machine for turning axles; second, United States patent No. 130,782, issued to Reuben Zeider, dated August 20, 1872; third, the machine of Thomas Blanchard for turning shoe-lasts, gunstocks, and other crooked or irregular surfaces. The Heffley patent bears dg,te nearly two years earlier than the Aram patent, and if it contained the essential characteristic of the complainant's machine, or suggested the main element upon which the Aram machine depends for success, it might be considered a defense. Butther-e is no proof that a working machine was ever built under the directions given by Heffley in his specifications, and I think it hardly needs expert testimony 'or the opinion of skilled mechanics to show that 81 machine constructed according to Heffley's specifications would be of no practical Use. It is trlle that he provides that a guide to his cutting tool shall revolve within the cavity or hollow of the skein, but the .devices for trausmittingto thecut'ter the movements of the guide are so complicated as to be evidently of nopractical value,and they do not, aait seems to me, t,end to suggest the simple but effective device for,' the same purpose shown in the Aram patent. The Heffley device if! not only evidently inoperative by reason of its complicated construction, but it is organizEld to begin its work at the wrong end of the timber, and could never be to operate successfttlly. ' ,. The Z'eider 'patent beal's ai:aterdat>e by some months than Aram's, but the attempt 18 made, by the proofs lin this case, to carry his invention bMk of the date of Ara.1l1 1g in.vention. In 'Jtily,'1870;Ataln began 'his experiments, and i't{Nbvember or December,' ISH, he had built and"inaucceBsful 8workingfuachine embodying the essential feittttrGs' 6f· his plttent; whlle Zeider daes notseeth to halve ever made a wljtking machine till after the issue of his patent. I have no doubt fromthelYroof that Aram's invention antedates he Zeider's, lI.ndthat without· itny' knowledge 'of Zeider's prosecuted' his own experimentstoi 8 successfhl· working' machine ,long e'\'er embodied: his deviceineither'nl.odel (')rdrawin:ga:. Indeed, I did: 'not understand the- defense.. as placing lI.uy
the hearing Zeider as older'in the art, or as having anticipated Araql's invention. lam, therefore, fully satisfied from the proof that nei.ther the Heffley nor Zeider machines can be held to de. feat the complainants' patent for want of novelty. So, also, in re· gard to the invention of Thomas Blancharcl for turning shoe-lasts, etc. I am clear that this doss not anticipate the Aram invention, as Amm's device works upon an· entirely different principle from Blanchard's. I therefore do not find this patent void for want of novelty. , Defendant, however, contends that it does not infringe, because it is insisted that Aram's device is for a only of certain parts,-the cutter.har, D, fulcrum block, H, feed-screw, G, and ratchet mechanism,-arranged in a revolving carriage and in relation to a suitable pattern; and that the ratchet mechanism called for in this com4ination is not found in defendant's machine. The function of this is to work the feed-screw. In defendant's machine the feed-screw is worked by means of cog Aram's ratchet is but. a single cog; more ratche.ts would have made a cog. wheel, and defendant's cog-wheel is a mere for Aram's ratchet. The feed-screw is an old mechanical device; its function in the Aram machine, as well as in defendant's machiP8, is to move \he fulcrum block longitudinally, 80 as to carry the cntting tool forward and enable it to do its work. This feed-screw, with the device by which iUs operated, is a mere adjunct to the leading feature of Aram's invent,ion, which was ,the centrally-pivoted b8t1' carrying the knife upon one end, and with its motions controlled by the revolutions of the other end within the hollow pattern. This feed-screw .and rl.l.tchet. simply carried the knife forward as fast as it cut away the wood. This could undoubtedly have been done by other mechanical qevices well known in the art at the time of Aram's invention. And J cannot sanction the position contended for by defend·ant's counsel, that Aram!s central thought, the tqing which he invented, and which makes bis machine u,seful and valuable by reason of its ,simplicity and effectiveness, can, be from him with impunity simply because defendant uses it .in combination with 's, device for securing thenec ssary longitudinal movement,: ,It seems to me too narrow and circumscribed a construction of Aram!s invention .to hold that he caD' only use his pivoted bar, withoutwhicb none of these machines would have any va:lue. iu combinatiol:;lwith such a ratcbetasbe .sp13cificaUy shows for workmg his feed-screw. He was the patent law to show an operative machine-to teach
A,RAMV. 'MOLINE WAGON CO.
the world how this pivoted bar cOlild be made to' do; its work so as to cut an external surface to fit an internal surface. To do this, it was necessary the cutter should move and the feed-screw would naturally suggest ifself for that purpose. The modes of operating thiB'feed-screwwere rend I cannot subscribe to the position tha-t;because Aramdescribeda ratchet he was, therefore, compelled to UBea ratchet, and that orily, with his invention. The testimony abundantly shows that the'new thing which Aram invented was the' pivoted bar, and that to make:this work ef-, fectively he combined with it certain old' and well·known meohanical devices, such as the feed-screw, the sliding fulcrum block, slide-ways, and gearing-wheels, by which the fulcrum block and pivoted bar were to be revolved. In the light of the proof I do not think the claim in this patent should be construed as a mere combination claim of old elements; but it is, I think, a claim for the pivoted bar, which was a by Aram, and made efficient when new element, used with these older devices.' ' . In regard'to the; argument'madeby.defendant from the proofs of the contents of the file wrapper, of complainant's patent,. I do ,not think, as contelld.ed by the learnEld hasl'waived or abandoned any part of his invention, or limited or estopped himself from, claiming the full benefit of his invention!, by anything shown in these proofs. This proof from wrapper. simply shows ,that Aram's, original IlpecifiQatious were, Ilomewhit cnide, and the first, second;> and' fourth claims were such as could cift'cations; that not have been allowed forat:\ythi:tigshown in thl3sp the examiner of the .patent-office' ,that ,Heftley ,patent substantially anticipated Aram's invention lthat upon this-ruling, Mam obtl1'ined leave to withdraw his drawing and specifications,: and next, day filed amended containing matter as the original, stated, with the claim as it now appears in the patent"which issubstantiltlly the third claim in his original application. This cannot be construed that, Heftley's patent anticipated Aramtsinventi<}ll, as an or a concession that Antm's invention issubordiriate t6or' Ii foere -improvement on Heftley.. I see nothing in. tliispr60ho which he 'claimed in was ·;allbwed.· his present 'clltim oil" condition thli:£ heC"'vould!a1itd dm wa-ivaa broader r think it very evidElnt' frointhe'orlgfnal plication that it was prepared by some one unskilWdih such
the
240
FEDERAL REPORTER.
and with but little as to what either the description or claim should contain. I find in defendant's maohine all the essential fel1tnres of the Aram patent; and have n,o doubt the charge of infringement is fully sustained by the. proof. The reissue of these Heffiey and Zeider patents cannot help these defendants, as it is .palpable that new claims cannot make the Heffiey machine operative or practical, nor carry back the Zeider invention to the time or beyond it when Aram had made a successful working machine and a perfected invention. There will be a decree that oomplainants' patent is valid, and that defendant infringes the same, and a reference for an as to profits and damages.
HAILES
and others v.
ALBANY STOVE
Co.·
(Oircuit Oourt, N. D. New York.
March 15, 1883.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-DISCLAIMER-REISSUE·.
Where a patentee has defectively or insufficiently described his inventIOn, and claimed more than he has a right to claim as new, he is entitled to a reissue of his patent upon a surrender of the original; but it is not the office of ·a disclaimer to reform or alter the description of an invention.
SAME-OFFICE OF DISCLAIMER.
Where there are several claims, some of which he is entitled to, and the part of the invention which is his own can be definitely distinguishable from that which is not his own, a disclaimer before suit brought will put him right and enable him to recover upon his patent all though it had originally been con:fined to the proper claims; but he cannot convert a claim for one thing into a claim for something else, and amend the description to effectuate such claim. 3. SAME-VASE.
In this case as there was nothing in the description or claim of the complainant's patent to indicate to the pnblic that they were appropriating anything of which the patentees were the inventors, the disclaimer filed by the complainants cannot avail, and the bill will be dismissed
In Equity. I. G. Younglove and A. J. Todd, for complainants. Esek Cowen, for defendant. WALLACE, J. The letters l'atent upon wmoh thIS aotIOn IS founded were granted to Lewis Rathbone and William Hailes, November 21, 1865, and are for an improvement in coal stoves. The olaim involved here is as follows: °AWrmed. See 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 261.