WILLIAMS lIANUlr'a CO.
tp.
P'RANI:LIN.
393
WILLIAMS
CO; "'. FRANKLIN
et al. J
(Circuit Cowrt, D. Delaware.
to,1890.) " .
1.
PATBNTS FOR INVBN'1'IONB'-INVBN't!ON-BASKETS.
The tlrst of letters patent No. 313,910, dated March 17, 1805, for a wire hoop surrounding the staves of a basket, and having its ends bent around the opposite edges of'one of the staves, does not cover a patentable novelty.
2.
SAMB.
A patented .stave basket cOnsisted of an ordinary stave basket, having stays extendinA' over certsinof the staves, from the top to the bottom of the basket, and a wire lloop surrounwng thE! basket between the staves and the stays, beldIn position by nails driven through the stays and staves beneath the said hoop. TheWire hoop waS old, and the addition ,of stays not asserted to be an original device. Held, there was no invention in supporting the wire bythenaUs. i ' ;"'.
. . .' . " ., eqqity by the Manufacturing Company aga.irist lamJ ··Franklin and Franklin, trading as Franklin BrOil·· to' strain infringement of patent. ' ;,,: , GmQUyBr08·· for . , Goo. Gray and H. H.Ward, for defendants. ,
In
.
W'ALlllS, J. This is a s'\lit in eqUity for the of ent No. 818,910, dated ,Mal!ch 17, 1885, granted the .8;8 assigriee0f Roland S.Bartlett. The subject of t)le patent is a sl;ave 1Iasket which is used for carrying fruit and garden truck, in measured qUllolltities, ready for market;, and the alleged infringement is the manufacture, sale, and use by the defendants oftruck or fruit ;embodying the covered by the two claims of the which read as follows: . "(1) The combination. with the staves of a basket. of a middle hoop.,encircling the basket. and having its ends bent around the opposite edges of one()f ,the staves. substantially asdesqribed. .'. · . . .. , .. (2) The CQmbination. in basket. of the bottom. the side tb,e hoops at the top and bottom, the re-enforcing and sustaining st8ys.F.seciirtld by nails to the upper and lower hoops, the middle hoop overlaid by the stays, and nans,n, dri'Ven through' the' stays and staves under said middle hoop. whereby the latter, is supported. substantially as described." The essential feature of the ,Bartlett basket, and on which the validity of the complainant's patent depends, is the mode of fastening this middle hoop by nails, staples, or double-pointed tacks, driven through the stays andstave&. The first. claim, which is simply for a. middle hoop of wire surroullding the basket, and having its ends bent around the opp015ite edges orone of the stavea, presents no novelty whatever', either by itself or in combination with .other parts. Time out.of mind, wires ijave -beell Ilecured in the ,same or manner to innumerable objects, and for various purposes; In fact, an old stave basket, which is one of the deI
Reported by Marke Wilks Collett,' Esq.· of the Philadelphl.a bal'.
fendants' exhibits, has a middle wire hoop fastened at its ends precisely as described in, the clairp" the,efore, may be dismissed without further comment. ' , , The only qUElstion to be court is; does the second claim contain a patentable invention? The object of the inventor, as deproved, for forming; boop m the basket. ,the'Jituddlehoo-p, and for This is accompllshed by'plaCifig'vertioal stays over, some oithe staves and, ponsist, narrow strips ,of-'wood from the ,top: f,o,tbebottom of are 9t the' hichhold 'A,Dall Qr,double-p.Olntedtaclt tb,rough each stay and the stave benes.tl'i'it;/aUd'below the middle'hoop. It is claimed that this form of "suspension strip" serves materially to protect stave:ls"iji, orlglbaldevlce; whole'clainnsexammed 8:t'the 'speCification: 'novelty in the combination is the mode of supporting the niiddle'hoopbythenails 01' tacks which are driven underi,t through and sta\res;Ev. erything else in the 'old. ' , decisions in suits for the infrin,:r;ements of patents have established the rule that novelty cortstitfi'tij:inveritionj :and,',.wbile lthe"!ine 006fwooil1:iti'VewtiM" and irtechanical&kill is, s()w.etimes' difficult ,to define) f,bej lin ;'6vary case{st1the ',evidehce: 'of i the exercise \of,the 'creif!,?b1 the.practic8J. experlet<rce'o'fl a m 'order; to bnng a new 'ttIachmh';.or. dtnribi<nittion' within:the,'proteCtiotl r tb,e:pa4lnt'laws. If the !constructionu()fiilheBartlett basket; it is difficultto find it. There is no novelty in putting a wire hoop around basket or, barreli' an:d il!l1,.fajiten:ing, 'the ends as ,de,sCribed, ·l)ll'ii'l'1'tI.::enforoihgs()nl6 Of·the staves by, 8.' vertical stay j' nor could an4,sta,:"e: the !:w, ii,' ,1, )h",l;) ',re, de,g,te, e,' lV,ha,t is kn,own " t,Q pe :A,1l 9f the com binatiODJ anerold; Jand theili' iq exhibits, is nothing more .than;wha;trwowdbe,expooted JrGm the appliedskiU
iri
of
.!'l,',
t Jaws is we,ll,,s,tated 107, U., S. 200, 2
Jr 5". :,;i j . ': " " , ' , ;' I,l! Tile desigll of'the:patent laws 'is ,.oreW81'd thQseWbo D;lakesOIl)88ubst8n.
QriJpvention WhiQh 'to andmakel:1 a step ,in .. of all V()f., it, to grant a monopply for eyery trifling deVICe, ideldvhicb wotrld naturally and spontaneOusly mechanic '01"bperaoor in the ordinat,Y' progress of manu;'1 fl",;; \' .
:,
...i,";;'
!
(
In a
tl;1e opinion the
MANUF'a
co. 1/;
"To gmnt a single party a monopoly of every advance made, except; where the exercise ·of invention. somewhat above ordTh'a.ry mechanical or en· gineering skill is distinctly shown, is unjust in principle, and injurious in its consequences...." In Hollister'v.Manujactui'ing Co., 113 U; S. 59,5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 717, where the patent was for an admittedly new and useful improvement, l;\nqll!\d"heen sustained in the court ",as held that a device.which only the expected skill Of the maker's calling, and invdh·e.st>llIy the exercise of 6rdinary faculties of reasoning upon mate· rials supplied by special knowledge, and facility of manipulation result· ingfroin<habitual, intelligent practice, is in no sense '6 creative work of the inventive faculty, such as the constitution and patent laws aim to encourage and reward. ThomP800 v. Boi'S8ilier, 114 U. S. 1, 5 Sup. Ct. RlW·.I042jreaffirms theprinc::iples of the two cases just cited. Other authorltiesmight be added to show that the Bartlett basket does not embody a: patentable invention, but those referred to are deemedsufficient. T.helDethod of securing the .middle hoop, which is relied on as the main feature in the Bartlett.basket, is, as defendants contend, suggesWd, hy,the drawing accompa,nying letters patent No. 137,368,daWd April to William C. Hip;gins, for, improvement in baskets. 'fh:at d11lwing represents s\\IQoden hoop placed aro\lnd the middle ora woven basket, having outside vertical stays which support the hoop by bolts which are driven through the stays and hoop, and are fastened on the irtsiqe 'of the basket by" antlt. If this is not an anticipatitnl ofl3artleWs alleged invention, very near to being one. But the ,,;aut the complainant's patent invalid, and ofpatenbJ,bility is its bill must therefore be dismissed.
l!-EPORTER, vol. 41. ,, .
UNITED STATES
1).
THE SADIE
et al.
(Oircuit Oourt, 8. D.New York. February 11,1soo.)'
. 1. , ,'
'
29, 1888, § I, forbids, the depositing of any refuse mud, sand, or tidal waters oithe harbor of New York, or its'adj,aoent or tributary or in, those of Long lsland, sound, within limits prescribed by the lIl1pemaor ohhe harbor, and a penalty is prescribed therefor. 'Held, that the deof such refuse mud or sand hI: t):J.e channel of the Hudson river at a point , 60mijeil,from, the harbor is a violation of the provisions of the act, and punishable , thereunder. ' , ' , , I,
Act
, Ul'--CoN'STRU,OTION 0"8', BTATUTB.
, '.'
2:
, " ,An 'omberidesignated fu act as snch supervisor, accordlng.to' the provisions of such act, bll\ued an order providing, that the deposits of, refuse mud, ,sand" al).d dredging take placeeast,of a qartain meridi,an of longitude, and south of a ,,:certain parallel oflatitnde. · B:eld,tha.ti this order prescribed the limitilwithin , matter might ,of the statute.:" '
,BAME'.
"
, ,
."
dischl\rging, or depos'lting, by anyprooesB manner, qfrefuse, Ilirt, ashes,' cinders, mud, .saI.1d, dredgings, slu<lgeaoid, 01' any other matter :ofany kind. other than! that (lowIng from sewers, and passing,thetefromin a liquid state,'in thetidalwaterei of the harbor of New York, or its adjacent or tributary waters, or :inthose of Long :Island sound, with i n the limits which shall be prescribed by the supervisor of the harbor. is hereby strictly forbidden; and every such act is made a misdemeanor; and every person engaged in, or who shall aid, abet. authorize, or instigate, a violation of this section, shall, upon conviction, be punishable by fine or imprisonment. " 'i,"
By: the second section every master and engineer, or person or persons acting in such capacity, respectively, on board any boat or vessel, who shall knowingly engage in towing any soow, boat, or vessel loaded with any such prohibited matter, to any point or place of deposit or discharge in the waters ofthe harbor of New York, or in its adjaoent or tributary waters, or in those of Long Island sound, or to any point or place elsewhere than within the limits defined and permitted by the supervisor of the harbor hereinafter mentioned, shall pe deemed guilty of a violation of the act, and upon conviction punished as provided in section 1. Section 3 provides that in all cases of receiving on board of any scows or boats such forbidden matter or substanoe as herein described it shall be the duty of the owner or master, or person acting in such capacity, before proceeding to take or tow the same to the place of deposit, to obtain a permit from the supervisor of the harbor, defining the precise limits of