proof .entitled Itb<1oUi' verdict. '' " ," "'I::i j;: :.' r
'.'. I! ;)
aremanwacturelsof paper; is .' " "'. '
·The jurY' retnrned a verdict for the defendant. :'
, SHIVE
"
et al.
'D.
STAiNDARDWATCH. CO.l ,
(Cir'cUU Oourt, E. D; · ' · j',
February <. '." \ _(-.. _ , : ', ;' ., "
r. r
"p!
:.
'1:
'COJIIMUllgohn arm pivoted:tQ t-b4ilbridgeill wUhan i/ldex pivQted to OBP!'ble of an and a screw to the;regtilBtor more exactly after'Brough setting by hand; where 'the screw and " 'lIp.tlnllw$'e placed 01) index, is.ijlfrillged by a device , that t Q IIQrtj'T,! d spring w\lre, plp,ce9- on thIl, bridge ', , the arm; " , ,,' " , , , " 2. SAMB4S8tlBOJi':LBTTBl'IIi,:",SPBOuJOATIONs'-SunWIENCY. ,':, " " , method of of 'regulator to ,the not- shown or . deilcHbed; but where t-herim mU'st :necessl\rily be cut so lUI to 'be "snapp'ed" over 'the't:ftbjection, of the bridge, and where lJU'ch attachments are commonlyI If not uDi. W'lIl11d be to,an ordinar7 w;"a,an" CleD :'" " ,"J set
1.'
,
,all,
',;.
'On 'Bill" Answer,and' " , Bill! in equity by David ,Shive' alid !Benjamin F. DuBois agairistthe Keystone l;'tandard Watch Gompanyfor infringement <?fpatent. , Fmeat Ballou, for , , ; John, McIJiYnilld; for respondent{'! i', . ;:;. .' ":, "; ,
,1
j
, infri6giri« patent' fo'r"imptovementiri "Watch1:regtrlatoi'S," No.
dated Au-
gust
810ne is deiiie<:l. 'Iris only necessary;' therefore, to as:. certain 'Wn9£the patent cbvers,'and what the respoilderit has done. The specifications say:" ,,"" . "', ' , : Ii ·
is
, The charge
,"" My i n consists: ot'the .:egulator, connll'Cited to pivotal arm. aiid capableJof motion ',iildepenilent' of said arm, wMrebyprovision is made 1ol'delieate or fine adjustment or'feglllatiQn of awatcb,.Referring to the the' bridge of a watch, which:is generally of the and con,st,l'llotion, ,a114 , B represents the: ,\,egulatingarJ;Il, if;! t(l said formed with a pi which is c,onnected tM index, C; it being notlce9- that the said index ,'Ilas. a, motion in7 dependent of'the' arm, B.Frorl1 tlie' end of the D, ,the index' isflttell;and passing through orieof'thelugs is a setScrew. point of which is' adapted to press agatnsttbeindex:.' :F reprasehtisaspring.,Which is secured to the arm. B, and .bears againsMhe index on screw, sp that, while the index may, \>e in one direction by ,tlllli ,screw, its retlfrr;t ,()r opposite motion may be effected by, the spring when the,'screw'is released." ' , , .. :! I :,: .- '; :;:., '.' ').l' \ -. - , ! - -, -:'
a
" 1
d.'jjerkeley'
itf'the Phhadelphia bar. "
SHIVE .".:l\1'ii;ST0liE
00.
to said arm, and having a motion independent thereof. ,substantially as an.d for the purpose set forth. second, an index in combination with the screw and spring, and a pivoted arm on which said index has indppendent motion, D, substantially as and for the purpose set forth; third, the arm with D, the index, C, the screw, E, and the spring, F, combined and operating as and for the purpose set forth."
The;clll.ims 8re: :wFirst, an arm pivoted to the bridge, in combination with an Index pivoted
The respondent has manufactured and sold a watch regulator, substantially identical with that above described and claimed. It consists of the arm, with an index pivoted thereon, having independent motion, and the screw and spring to secure accurate adjustment. The screw and spring are so arranged as to operate against the arm, and thus adj ust the rCj:!:ulator; while in the complainant's they operate directly against the index. This difference, however, is immaterial as respects the question before me. Possibly it constitutes an improvement. The complainant's arm, while movable, must be tightly adjusted on the bridge to avoid danger of :moving it, in op,eruting the screw. The application of the screw and spring to the arm seems to avoid this danger. If it be an improvement, however, it is nothing more, and does not entitle the respondent to the complainant's invention. The criticism by respondent's experts of the specifications and drawings, respecting the attachment .of complainant's regulator to the bridge, and thus made to distinguish it from the respondent's, accomplishes nothing. No competent watchmaker would fail to understand the and drawings, and see how the attachment is to be ,made. must necessarily be cut, as illustrated by the model in prQ<,?f,soasto allow it l:!napped over the projection of the bridge. 8p.ch attachJllents are commonly, if not In this instance it could not readily be made in any other way without ing ()f the inve1)tion. When thus made, the attachment is substantially identical with the respondent's. At most, the difference ference is one of mechanical construction merel v. The proofs indicate, pretty plainly, that Mr: Bitner, from whom the respondent obtained its regulator, saw and copied the complainant's (with the immaterial changes referred to) before it was patented.. He denies tpis,imd his denial may possibly be true. He is, however, so deeply involved in the controversy, which threatens his character R!! well as his pecuniary interests, that his denial is entitled to less weight than it would otherwise receive. The correspondence between the complainant and the Lancaster Watch Company, (the respondent's predecessor in business.) of which Mr; Bitner was general manager, shows that this company was the invention when first made; that the off'er was taken .into consideration; and that a little later Mr. Bitner applied fQr.alid obtaiped ,a for the regulator complained . HOlv it occurred thecomplaillant's application, then pending, was by the is difficult of explanation. That it was. overlooked must be aRsumedi; fol" as above: found, the two patents qnly
J'BDERAL
REPORTEB,vol. 41.
substantial difference in the specifications consists in the use of different termS to ,describe the same thing; The bill must be sps.tained, and a decree entered accordingly.
CoNSOLIDATED
PATENTB CO. et ale
tJ. BERRY.
SAME
v.
BARNEY.
(Oin'cuit Oourt, D. Ma88achusetts. February 5,1890.) PATENTS FOR lNYENTIONS-INFRI!iGEMENT-VENTILATOR WHE'ELS.
Under letters'patent No. 261,128, dated July 18,1882, for improvements in venti· lator wlleels or fans, the 1lrst claim WlIS fora.hood-shaped piece ",1. the end cf each Wing in the fan, for the purpose of holding the air from escaping. It appeared that the samE\ device had long been used in the wing's of propeller wheels for the purpose of boldinj;t the water. Held that, as .the device had been in priort/sll, the tirst claim of the patellt cannot cover all applications cf it, but must be limited stdctly to tbe form of apparatus desoribed in the patent. :
In Equity. Bill for infringement of patent. William A. Redding, for complainant. Geo. O. G. Ooale, for defendant Berry. Benj. F. Thur8ton and Henry Mar8h, Jr., for defendant Barney. Cour, J. These two suits are brought to restrain the defendants from infringitig letters patent No. 261,128, dated July 18, 188.2, issued to for improvements in ventilator wheels or fans,.and James M. for anapcount. As the main defense in both cases is the same, I shall consider them together. ,The improvement described in the Blackman patentissiqlple, and contains but one. marked feature. The specification says: "MYI in'vention to ventilator wheels or fans which are used for the pUl'pos'e of furcing air out from buildings and other places. As the wings of such fans have heretofore been constructed. their outer ends have been left open,andtbey have been so formed that they do not, operate to catch and draw air the fan at .tPEl ends of the wings; but, on the other hand, a por· tion of. the. air gathered by the fan falls over the ends of the wings back into the room.instead of being thrown out therefrom, especiallj' when the speed of the fan is great. 'fhe leading object of my invention is to obviate this dif· ficulty, Which I accomplish by giving to the l'nds of the Wings a new 'proved cOll8truction, covering the space which has heretofore ,been left between the'diagonal end of the-Wing and the outside oOhe wheel, as hereinafter forth. *. * * The h'ading feature of my invention is found in so the wings of the fan that the space which has been heretotore left upenbetwe,en the rim of the fan and the diagonal outer end of the wing wilt 'by that part of the wing marked 'd.' I find, by actual use, that fan.!lconstructed with wingsthus made are much more efficient than . when the ends of the wi.ngs are left open, as heretofore."
The' llrstclaim,which is the only one in controversy, is as follows.