COWELL V. SESSIONS.
453
trunk. The lower ena of the strap rides over the dovetailed lugs of the catch till the cover is closed, when the inclines of the straps and the lugs coincide. While this device is a fastener, it bears no substantial resemblance to the rigid keeper of the Taylor invention, which slides into a socket, and engages with a non-elastic hinged latch, actuated by a spring to hold it either open or shut, the latch snapping into firm engagement with the keeper. Each reissue was a similar futile attempt to expand a narrow patent into a comprehensive one, and was intended to cover subsequent inventions which neither Semple nor Locke made or conceived. Unless construed in strict con· formity to the actual inventions as described in the specifications, the Semple reissue, and the first and second claims of the Locke reissue, are void, because they are undue expansions of the respective originals, but not by reason of any laches in obtaining a reissue. Exhibit 0 was made under the Taylor patent of September 21, 1880, and is upon a different principle from that of the Taylor inventions of 1872 and 1878. It has no spring latch or hinged latch. It consists of two rigid parts-one to be attached firmly to and above the valance of the trunk, the lower end of tte piece being in the shape of a flatted dowel pin with a square opening. Quoting now from the description given by Mr. Shepard, the defendants' expert: "The part to be applied to thE' body of the trunk consists of two pieces; one piece is a sort of frame, having holes fot" attaching it to the trunk's body, and in the middle, on the front of its upper end, there is a stud, or projection, beveled on its upper side, which stud is for engaging the hole in the part which is applied to the trunk-cover. By the sides of this stud there are two flanges for engaging the edges of the rigid piece on the trunk-cover and causing it to come into proper position for engagement with the beveled lug. * * * 'When the cover comes down, the rounded end of the dowel strikes fastener, and thereby brings the cover the flanges on the lower member of into the pl'Oper position latel'ally, and as the cover comes down, the dowel rides over the beveled face of the lug, and as soon as the opening in the dowel is directly in front of the lug, it snaps into engagement. * * * In order to d:sengage the fastener, the lever (a lever mounted on a vertical axis and pivoted within the frame) is SWllllK forward to pry the piece which is hung to the cover of the trunk forward, far enough to disengage it." This fastener was not a success, because there was no spring; and as the keeper or dowel depended upon its position upon the valance, if the valance was out of position, the keeper failed to spring over the face of the lug. It is manifestly unlike the Semple invention, and is, in its construotion, upon a different principle from that of the spring dovetailed strap of Locke, which rides into engagement with the wedging faces of the lugs upon the catch. The Rice invention, the patent.ee says in his specification, consisted "of a trunk-catch made of three castings, provided with a spring, and oopable of being put together without special fitting. It is so constructed that two dowels cast on the pwtion attached to the cover sockets formed in the part attached to the body of the
i454
,FEDERAL :REPORTER,
'In view'of the Taylor:' patent of 1872, and the -John Arnoldpateilt of July 1, 1873, it is a narrow patent, and consists in the fact that the parts are assembled without special fitting or riveting, but by sliding spring into place. It has a spring and hinged latch, and is therefore unlike'Exhibit O. . The other exhibits which are said to infringe have four castings .and a; spring, and are not so arranged that they {Jan beheld in place without riveting. In the Rice fastener, the latch is so held in place by the spring that, if it was broken, the latch would be liable to drop out of its bearings. This is not true of the defendants' :fasteners: In the Rice patent, both fasteners must be held out pf engagement by the hand when the lid is lifted. Undelt the Taylor patent of 1872, and in the defendants' fasteners, the sprmg holds the latch out of engagement when the lid is to be lifted., There is no infringement of the Rice patent. The bill is dismissed.
SLESSINGER
and others. 1 January 29, 1883.) "
(Circuit Court, D. California. ,
In Equity. John L. Boone, for complainant. },[. A. Wheaton, for defendants. SAiVYER, J., (orally.) In tbis case t am compelled to decide that the evidence is insufficient to show an infringement before the filing of this bill; or, indeed, an infringement at anytime. ,The evidence is very slight upon those points. There are two points made by defendants, both· of which, I think, are well taken. One is that if it is conceded that the articles clIarged to have been made are an infringement of the patent, it does not appear tllat those articles were sold or made prior to the filing of the bill. The defenuants make that point and !ely Upon it. The only testimony is, taking it in its aspect , .: :From 8th'Saw}'iJr.