THAXTER V. BOSTON ELECTRIC CO.
833
allowed in the patent subsequently issued to him, which claim describes an article differing from the sa,mplea now made respectively by plaintiffs and defendant in that there are two upper rings, one connected with the lower weighted ring, and the otner connected with the flaring support of the shade, the latter ring slipping over the former or cap ring. Without the English patents, it is impossible to say what particular exhibition of inventive genius it was which, in the opinion of the patent-office, entitled plaintiff to receive any letters patent at all. On the presentation of his amended claim he requested its allowance for the reason that his shade-holder is superior to that of the English patents, "in that ,it is not so liable to fall off, owing to the fact that it extends down upon the candle to such a distance that it would be almost impostlible to knock it off." When experience shows that a cap intended to tit over a candle and support a shade is liable to be tipped over, it cel'tainly calls Jor no great exertion of mental power, nor even for any appreciable mechanical experience, to remedy the difficulty by extending the annular cap, or its equivalent, a connected ring, sufficiently far down the candle to insure a proper purchase. The application for preliminary injunction must be denied. The plaintiff may, if he can, demonstrate the p{Ltentability of his invention upon the irial.
THAXTER V. BOSTON ELECTRIC
Co. and olhers.
(Circuit Oourt, D. Maaaachmcttl. December 8, 1887.) PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMENT-LOCKS.
Letters patent No. 815,186, dated April 7,1885, issued to George E. Thaxter for improvement in knob-locking and releasing mechanism for locks, held infringed bY' patent No. 828.918, granted to Crockett & Allen, August 11,1885, for improved locking and unlocking mechanism for electric locks; the difference between the two being that the tumbler in the latter was in the form of a toothed wheel, and for the locking slide engaging with the slot in the tumbler was substituted a pivotal clutch or dog engaging with the toothed wheel, and a swiveled spindle for the solid spindle.
In Equity. W. A. Macleod, for complainant. J. E. Abbott, for defendant. NELSON, J. This suit was brought for the infringement of patent No. 315,186, dated April 7, 1885, granted to the plaintiff for improvements in knob-locking and releasing mechanism for locks. The object of the invention is declared to be the providing of mechanism whereby the latch or lock-bolt of the door of a building occupied by several different tenants, all using the same entrance, may be automatically locked so that it cannot be retracted by the knob or key, and can be released and made capable of movement at the will of a person on any floor of ,the building by closing an electric current. v.32F.Iio.13-53
FEDERAL REPORTER.
The invention, as described in the specification, consists ofthe following combinatiori: The operative parts of a door-lock, the knob, bolt, tumbler, and other mechanism, by means of which the turning of the: knob draws 'back the bolt aud releases the door; a locking slide moved by a spring, and engaging with a slot in the tumbler; a lever impelled by a spring, and adapted, when released, to withdraw the locking slide, and lock the tumbler; an electro-magnet; and a deyice to hold the spring-impelled lever and connect the electro-magnet with the other mechanism. This latter d-evice consists of two pivoted elbow levers, connected together by a notch and pin. One arm of one ofthese levers, moved bya spring, bears against a lug on the locking slide. To one of the arms of the other lever is secured an armature. The operation of the apparatus is this: The movement of the armature, when attracted by the energized magnet l disengages the notch and ,pin, the locking slide is forced olit aBhe slot in the tumbler, and, by turning the door-knob on the outside, the bolt is drawn back, and the door unlocked. ,The turning olthe door-knob also serves tQ,reset the lock. to patent No. 323,918, The defendants' lock is constructed granted to Grockett & Allen, August 11, 1885, for improved locking and unlocking, mechanism fo),' ,eJegtric locks. It is conce<;le(i that the Crockett & Allen lock contains all the essential elements of Thaxter's. with this exception: In the former the tumbler is in the form of a toothed wheel, and for the Thaxter locking slide engaging with the slot in the tumbler is substituted a pivoted clutch or dog engaging with the toothed wheel. In the specification and drawings of the Crockett,& Allen patent the dog is forced into the notches of the wheel by a spring, but in the exhibits a weight is SUbstituted for the spring; and performs the service. There is also this difference: In the Thaxter lock the knob spindle is solid, while in the Crockett & Allen lock it is swiveled. Upon examining and comparing the two locks, it is very clear that the dog. ot clutch ,of the defend,ants']ock is nothing more than a mechanical equivalent for the locking slide of Thaxter. In this lam confirmed by. Mr. Livermore,' . expert called by the plaintiff. He says: the , . , "This clutch or dog is, in my judgment,the equivalent of the looking slide used by Thaxter, and mentioned as an element in each of the first three claims of the Thaxter patent, for the reasons that such a dog or device was, at the time of the Thaxter patent, a well-known, mechanical substitute for the slidebar used by Thaxter for the purpose of connecting an actuating part, such, for instance, as the knob, with the part to be actuated by it,so as to make the act\lating or for di&connecting actuating and actuated pl:itts for the purpose of making the former inoperative fOr the time-being." '.',-, :, , .. , " ·· L ,
In this I fully concur, and must hold that the two devices are essentially alike, ,and produce the same result in substantially the same way. As to the swivel-jointed; spindle, that can only be regarded as a new device added to the Thaxter combination, and may be dismissed from the case. It is important to observe that. the patent-office seems never to have been called upon to determine whether the Crocke.tt & Allen invention "
CURRAN
fl.
ST. CHARLES dAR
co.
835
oonflicted with the ThaXter patent; fortha' reason that a]) the claims of the Crockett & Allen patent relate to the toothed wheel and dog, and to the swiveled spindle. These are.aH plainly outside of the Thaxter invention. They may be,:and are, patenta:bleimproV'ements on it, and thus protected fron:i ad0ption in USe by him. But this, of 'Course, cannot j ustify an appropriation of Thaxter's invention. ' The defendants also set up the defense of want of novelty, and contend 'that the plaintitrs invention was anticipated in seven prior patents: Smith's, 98,114; Roosevelt's, 178,382; Chinnock's, 197,826; 234,592; Sullivan's, 277,682; Woehrle's, 297,096jRoosevelt's, 306,179. In regard to this defense, Mr. Livermore says: "The patents put in evidence by the defendants as representing the state of the art relating to the 'Thaxter invention, merely show that. prior to:'the Thaxter patent, locking bolts hadin some been controlled or affeeted by devices; but, I have already none of them showor suggest a contrivance of any kmd for the controlhng the effeet of a door,knob or a door-bolt from a distinct point, and none of them show the com''bination of devices set forth in the Thaxter patent. or anything resemblinlj 'such combination ill construction or mode of operation." : This testimony is confirmed by a comparison of thEJse patents with 'thaxter's. Some of them are not automatic, but require the use of a key to turn back the bolt; and in no one of them is to be found any equivalent for the action of the locking slide with the tumbler. The defendants' lock, in my judgment, is an infringement of the first ,three claims of the plaintiff's pateut. Decree for the complainant.
CURRAN and others
11.
ST. CHARLES CAR Co.
«(Ji1'cuit Oourt, B. D. Muaou'1'i, E. D. November 15, 1887.)
1.
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMENT-PARTIES-JURISDICTION.
In an aetion for an infringement of a patent, a third party asked to be Dladl1 a party defendant. alleging that it was the manufacturer of the machines whieh were claimed to be an infringement of plaintiffs' patent; that defendant was its vendee; that it desired to settle the question as to whether or not the maehines were an infringement of plaintiffs' patent. 130th the complain. ant and the third party were non·residents. Held, that such third party might be made a party defendant, aJ;1d thll eourt would have jurisdiction to enter a deeree,as to the question of infringement that would be binding on all parties. " , , In an a,c,tion for an infringement of a patent,. a third ,p.ar.t,YaSked, to be m,ad«' . a defendant and be allowed to tile a cross-bill, alleging that plaintiffs had sent out cireulars to persons who had bought maehines of sueh third party. claiDling:that the machines were an infringement on Rlaintiffs' patent, and to sue all whQ, bought or used maehines of sueh third party'r manufacture. The cross-bill askaq an injunction against plaintiffs to rll' t,hem from so doing until the final deeree in the case. The original de· fendant, a vendee of only one maehine. could not maintain such acrossbill.· Held, that a third party cannot be allowed to a defendant'lnd then file a cross-bill that could not ,have beenmaintllinedby the'ori&inal fendant. ' (,.
2.