586
vol. 38.
ion. In the opinion the court say that but for the yielding or resilient ,be questionable whether his function of Gorham's patent would be valid. It is fairly to be assumed that the supreme court did not consiq.er the Frike patent an anticipation of either of the claims of the Gorham patent, and that the court were of the opinion. that the ptttent to Gorham was a valid ,The motion for an injunction is .
SINGER
MANUF'G
Co.
11.
Wn..80N SEWING-MAC?HII:iECO. et ale .March .is, 1889.) OF PATENT.
(Oircuieo.0urt, Equity; ,'Will take
Q""
cpgnizance' Qf a suit' cQmmenced ,4pril,8d for the hlfringe· ment of a patent which will expire August 28th following, as under the equity rules of the federal courts t4ere illll\llPl.e time between tho.!llil,dates to answer, take proofs, and bring the cas(l'to tUlnal hearing. . ' ,'
2. SAME-P ATENTAlBILITy..,.-ANTICWATION.....sHUTTLE·QARl'tHll;as. . The specification in letters patent No. 57,585, August 28, 1866, to John Sha!a shuttle-carrier o.nth.e. end of . a IlOckIDg'shtdCso:geared &s :to gin It an oscillatorymotIPn.J,n the upper perl,pbery clurier, is arltceSll of suitable size to receive the shuttle',' .and's gate or lid is hinge'd',to the side of 'tbe .catrier so as when shut , to'incl08ethe shuttle, 8nd to'alto'\V'its removal when open. the gate being held position br IIp)'ing :l!.ooks. The claim is for the shuttle-caras with a socket near ,its rim fortpe shutrier, tle; anld- a hlnglid gate, which confines the shuttle, and covers the bobbin, the witli' 8u1t8blemeans for locking and Prior ,p.a,ten,t,; ,'.'pP. w,ell. an. ,:0.aCi.llatJ,n.,g... ..q.tpe-h.older, and Qt.he.,r.,s a shuttle.-h{llder . witlJ, h4 or gate, but none showed the combination; arid complainant's ex· ,. ); peJit'testfmony",vas that none Of them showed theShallimberger device,' De· ,; expert testimony. Held no anticipation. ,
.' , Ris but,a to hinge the gate to an adiQi)ling part of the .' , machine hijltead' of to: the carii,er or rim, and such change is insufficient to . avoid a charge' ofinfrin,gemeilt. . , j .
, ' . '
In Equjty." Bill by the
against the William G..jVilson.
Offield 4c'l'oWWt.for,complaina.nt. 'J!1uJchf!/r for defendants· · : \ j; .',
BLODGE'F.l',. ,;)\ This is a bill: to restrain the alleged infringement of pa.tentN,<>".6.7 ,LS85 , granted 28; 1866, to John ,Shallenberger, for an ,"hnprowement in shuttle-cal,'riers' for now owned .by conlplainant through mesne' ltSsignments,and for an accounting. in the specifications, consists of a circularThe invention, ,sbapedshuttle.carrier, mountectupon.the end ora rocking shaft so geared I as:,to ghlean motion to .the ,shut,tle-carrier. . A recess is formed in the, ,upPet';periphery of the ·Q!ir.riEtl,'(of suitable size.and shape to rei cei"e thershuttle,.,and a gateol',lidcis:hi.nged to thesideof.the so ,las t whenshli1i., to inclo5e tbeshuttle in-itsteces5, and by swinging back ,thl( gaw toi allow ,of,
SINGER MANtrF'GCO,V. WILSoN
CO.
&87
hooks beingprovldetl for holding this gattfin the closed position. There ' .. ' . is but one claim in the patent; whioh is,: .. \'The shuttle-carrier. A, made substllDtrallyas described, with a socket near its rim for the. shuttle. and a'hinged gate. D. which confines the ;shuttle. and covers the bobbin; said gate being provided withsllitable means for lock:ing and unlocking the same as above set forth." , 'rhe defenses interposed are: (1) Want of jurisdiction in a court of equity from the fact that the patent waswitmn about four- and a half months of its expiration at the time this suit Was commenced; (2) want of novelty; (3) that defendants do not infringe. ' As to the first point. This suit was COmmenced AprilS, 1883. The patent did not expire until August 28,1883, so that there was ample time under the equity rules of the United States courts to have put in an answer, taken the proofs, and brought the case to a final during the life-time of the patE'nt. In the light, therefore, of the decisions in Sugar Co. v. Sugar 00., 21 Fed. Rep. 878; Dick v. BtrutMr8,25 Fed. Rep. 103; Ada'1lJ8'v. Iron Co., 340. G. 1045, 26 324,-1his is a proper case for equity jurisdiction. Upon the question of want of novelty, defendants have cited·'snd put in evidence prior patents as follows: 'Patent to John Zuckerman, of July 25,1865; patent to S. Comfort; Jr., May 7, 1861; patent to E. Harry Smith, of April 17, 1855; patent; to E. 'Singer, dfNovember 15;1859; pa.tent,to L. W.Langdon,'of 'October 30, 1855; patent to John Hinck... ley, of.Novembfll' 25, 1851; patent to LM. Singer, of December 11, 1866. No expert testimony, or opinions, are put into the' elise on the part of the defendants showing or tending to show that these patents, cited by the defendants, embodied or anticipated the invention in the patent under consideration. It is true that all these prior patents refer to shuttle,s.11-nd the, means of 9peratingthem, are known stitch sewing-macHitles;" and some ofthem show an oscillating bobbinholder. I have, ];lOwever, very carefully examined these patents, and have been unable,'from my own understlll1ding of their mode of operain ventiou cov.ered by the Shallention an<J effect, to discover in them berger patent; while the testimony,adduced on the part of the complainant,of a skilled expert, goes to show that none of these old patents contain or show the device.covered by the complainant's patent. It is true, I think, that some of these old patents do show a.n oscillating shutor bobbill -holder,and some of the othE'rs showashutt.le-holder with a Hdor gate to inclose the shuttle, in the holder; but none of them seem to me to embody the combination covered by the complainant's patent; and, as the proof now stands, with my own construction of'theS(f prior pateQts, I do not find any prior patent which shows an osciUaiing shuttle-carrier with a recess near its rim or periphery for carrying the shuttle,:aIld,a hinge? gate or lid forcQpfining the :shuttle in, its place when the machine is in operation, and for facilitating the removalov the shuttle when necessary, and a mode of the gate ,iIi I quite wellaatisfied ·frqm tb,e proof tbafnO antiCipatiOlull the. olaim of this patent ,ialiliown. I'
of
588
FEDEllAL REPORTER,
vol. 38. ,
As to the third defense, that defendants do not infringe. The flhallenberger patent provided for the .hinging of the gate to the oscillating carrier or rim, while the defendants hinge the gate to an adjoining part of the machine. I do not, however, consider this anything but a colorable change, and see no reason why the defendants could not as readily have hinged the gate to the shuttle-carrier as to have hi.p,ged it to another part of the machine; and, as I construe the Shallenberger patent, I do not think that he nj¥lessarily limited himself to hinging the gate to .the carrier itself, as I think it WIlS. sufficient that the gate should be so hinged as to confine the shuttle and cover the bobbin, so as to retain it within the recess provided in the carrier when the machine was in operation. I am therefore of opinion that the charge of infringement is clearly established by the proof,anda decree will be entered finding that the Plltent is valid,and that defendants have infringed it as charged. The is not only ,against the Wilson Sewing-Machine Company, but William G. Wilson, who was the president of that company; and in the case tenqs· to show that he not only the president but the chief stockhold,er and manager of the COI:\lpany, being, ,as one expressed it, "the company itself in all respects;" as the proof now stands, I think complainant is entitled to a decree for WilsoQas well, .asthe company,' but that question itlaY, be rese.J,'ved until the coming in of the mllster's report upon the :damages,whe,n the defendant Wilson will be at liberty to put ioproof on the reference to the ,as to damages bearing upon the question of his personal liability.
NA'l'101ut 1.
METER
tl. BOARD OF WATER
'Cou'Rs
OF YONKERS.
(Circuit Gourt, S. D. NetD York. April 17, 1889.) PATENTS FOR iNVENTIONS-CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIM-WATER-METER.
a SA,Mlll. meter described in patents to James A. Tilden is adapted from another ,.' . ' 'The
piston with projections and' a cylinder with recesses more in number than the projections. The 9n1y piston described in tbe specification Is one having llside-rocking and rotating movement"which is due to the fewer projections on tbe.()yIlnder than on the piston. Held, tbat it is such a piston that is referredto in the tlrst claim, and such 'piston is an element of it, and consequently,of claims 3-6 of, reis'sued letters patent, February 8,1887, to the Na: ,tional MetE\r Company, assignee of Nash. , engine'invented by Galloway, (English patent December 14. 1847,) in which , the· prl)jections on the piston equal in n.umber the recesses in the cylinder. and the ;p,isto'o has neither the sitJe-rocking nor rotary motion. In the Nash : meter tHe ports for entraJ;lce and discharge are in the ends' or sides of the piston; .the ends of the cylinder 'act as valves. and the compound movement of thll' ,opens some ;an4 ,.qloses ,others of the ports so as to equalizll the pressure atright anglCi's to the direction of the piston's mqvements., In Tilden'oS meter the ports lire in the endsohhecylinder case, so located'thatthe contact of the piston with '.the .divides .eaoh recess'into onefilUng and
The water-meter described in .letters patent No. 211,582, January 21, 1879, to Lewis H. Nash, is adapted from the Galloway rotary engine, which has a