CAVANAGH t1. PIKE.
CAVANAGH t1. PIKE
d al. July 22, 1890.,
(Ci1'C'UU Court, D. Massachusetts.
PU'l!:1'M'S POR INTIIINTION8-INPRINCtEMENT-PILE-DRIVERS.
Patent No. 205,244, granted June 25,18iS. to GeorgeH. Cavanagoh, for an improvement in pile-drivers, was for an extensible guide-way adapted to be projected . or extended below the platform or frame, to permit the hammer to follow and operate upon the head of the pile, to drive it below the level of the base of the pile. driver. that this is not infringed by patent No. 284,282, granted September 4, lli83. to RoysJ. Cram, for a steam pile-driver having a combined <lylinder and hammer, the whole within a frame having on each side continuous vertical grooves adapted to work in guides formed on, or rigidly fixed to, the uprightll.
.lames II. Lange and Jilred.P. Fish, for complainant. lVilliarn B. H. Dowse, for defendants. CARPENTER, J. .This is a bill in equity brought to enjoin the respond- ' ents from infringingletrerspatentKo.205,244, granted June 25, 1878,' to the complainant, foririlprovement in pile-drivers. The claims of the! lii.ltent are as follow!'!: "( 1) In a an extensible guide-way adapted to be projected6r: extended below thephltform or framl'. substantially as and for the purpose' ,j.·Sl'db"u. (2) The II\Jrights, b, b. combined with a vertically adjllstal:He Wilde-way aUapted to be lowered bl>low the l,>ase of thedri \'er. to permit the, hammer to follpw and operate upon the head of the pile. to drive it below tl)jl of the Lase. as may be dpsired." . In the construction of a pile-driver,it is found to be a practica},neces.· tiity that the uprights within which the hammer 'Yorks, and, such iill-, movable guide-way as Illay be attached thereto, shan not extend to:any : considerable distance below the lrame-work or platform of the pile-d.river. The purpose of this invention is to IJI'o\'idemeans whereby piles may, be driven to any desired point, withillcertain limits, below the level of,that i platform. The means employed for this purpose before the invention of; the complainant appear to have been as follows: (1) To apply to the upper end of the pile being driven a follower against which the hammer! might strike; (2) to bolt supplemental guide-ways to the upright!! in line with the stationary guide-ways; (3) to cause the hammer. in. falling, to project for some .portion of its length below the.euds of the up!;'igbt!l and stationary guide-ways. In the case of steam adcyl., on the hammer, and included :with it: iuc\er and. piston-rod are in one rigid frame-work, the length of the frame-work is such astQ!itllQw,i the fall of' the harmner to a point considerably below the ends oithe guide-ways. Examples of such pile-drivers are seen in pateptsNQ. 160,781, issued March 16. 1875, to Thomas T. Loomis; reissue No. " 7,586, issued April 3, 1877, to Thomas T. Loomis) ,and No. 185,458, is-' sued December 19, 1876, to Thomas M; Skinner. In addition to these' III ethods which.a ppenr to, ,h:l\'e been:inuse, there was pUblished. the ellt No. 134,412, issued December 31, 1872, to Charles H. Williamson, !I:: !l- Lole in the',
.;
9:10.;
"
vol. 42.
for the purpose of sliding the weight up and down on the rod, and which is evidently so constructedthat thE:) guiding rod may be extended below the platform. The English patent No. 2,562, granted September 18, 1862, to John Nymen: Woodford for driving and drawing piles, contains this statement: r'tBetween.tbe:upright barB or plates, there is a space in which there are other upl'ightseonsisting of two parallel plates or bars, wbich are capable of being sli.dul'l aM down between the two first-mentioned upright bars or plates, so UUit. when dl!.sired the uprights may be lengthened, whether when using it for a jib, or; otherwise. Chains and pUlleys are applied for winding up the monkey,drawfng piles, and raising soil." The device used by the respondents is represented in patent No. 284,282, issued September 4, 1883, to Roys J. Cram. It is a steam piledriver having a combined cylinder and hammer, called in the patent a "cylinder ram," the whole within a frame having on each side continuous vertical gropves adapted to work in guides formed on, or rigidly attached to,tha uprights. The respondents argue that the Woodford patent is a complete anticipation of the patent on which the complainant here sues. In the English patent the construction of the uprights, which are one eletrlent in the combination, is such that the weight cannot extend beloW·their lower ends; and therefore,the apparatus, as there shown, is not capable of the functions of the apparatus patented by the complainant.: On the other hand, it is now evident that a slight modification of the 'uprights will allow the guide-ways to project below the lower ends of the uprights. Whether to make this modification involves invention, I ;8hall not, in this case, undertake to decide; because I am satisfied that,assuming the patent of the complainant to be valid, it must still be so.construfld that the apparatus used by the respondents will not be held to be an infringtlment. If the compla:inant' had for the first time produced a guide-way exbelowth&endS of the uprights, then it might, perhaps, be said that to substitute guide-ways attached to the weight, and moving with it below the ends of the uprights, is only to prOVide an equivalent for the guide-ways movable and adjustable within a groove in the uprights so as tb extend downward beyond the end of the uprights. But it ap" pears that &' ;,guide-wllyextending below the uprights is shown in the patent to Willinlllson; and it also appears that a guide-way attachedtb, or; more proljerly'sI>eaking, forming a part of, the weight mechanism,is shown in the patents of Loomis and Skinner. In the patent No. 781, issued in'1875:, the patentee says: the pile can be driven below the lower extremity of ""With :hi1' the of the frame gUidingthehlllllmer and the grooved c}'U,flderis sU'chatttoaJIow the·frameto below the leaders when fou..-d ·nece'$i'lary, IUllhstHl retain its original veJ.'tinal position. which be the . . that-,the guiding groove or"guide-way in !Toe the drawings of the LOQiriisand Skinner patents is not continuous for the whole- l}ength Of 'tlHr 'frame, ahd that therefore the" fraine cannot ef-
CLEAVELAND FENCE CO. t'.. INDIANAPOLIS FENCE CO.
911
fectively i and safely extend so far. as to disengage or guidethe uprights. Assuming this to there sti.ll doesnot aPMrtt to ,be. any why on device. may not descend to a pOlnt where Its upper surface yery shghtly hIgher than the lower end .of the uprights, ,and thus provide for drivinj:/; the pile ·to a.pointsubstantially lowel' than the lower endofthoseuprights; and, ifitbe:urged that even thus thehiimmer mechanisIIi' cannot, as in the respondents' device; descend to a, distance below of the uprights nearly equal to its whole length, still it appears .!t. 'Qf _. these patents that the method of carrying the weight below the uprIghts by forming part of the weightmeehanism is fUlly described lin the. Loomis· patent, and shown in that patenii,and also. in .the Skinner patent. The, same .method was, suggested by the .practice, in the use of the old fo.rm 'of pile-driver; to allow to descenq,hy, part of its length below the ends or the .uprights, although it ief peI'haps, true ·that the construction and operatili>n of the flanges or not such as to make them a practicaHyoperative device '£<ilr tlais.purpose. The claim patent of the complainant cannot tberefoliebe construed to coveI' such a device; and the bill must, thel'lr fOI'e, be dismissed, with costs. , .'. J
(Oircuit OOUrt, D.
Ju).y 21, 1890.)
FOB INVENTIONS-PATENTABltxTy.,.-FENCES. . ,.e: 'Patent'No. 397,110, granted February 5, 1889,toJohnB.'Cleavelanci;clatmil"tna , , .d of a cornel' or end post, or iI\termediate, and a rod to slUd J,>0sts at 01' near their summits, with,a guy secured. to said inj, 'terrirelhate posts at 01' neardist.ance rod at its end, and anchored to the ground 1 ·i atU., bottom end. " BeW, that ,the clSlJIl embodieS no llatentable Dovel...,.. .
,In Equity.
. O. P · .Jacob8, for complainant. , .C·. &- E.iW. Bradford, for defendants.
WOODS, J. Suit for injunction against infringement of the sixth claim of patent: No. 397,11 0,i88uOO>on the 5th day of February, 1889, to John R Cleaveland, which claim reads as follows: ., In' a fence the combination of ll'corner or end post, an intermediate post, aDd a distance rodseeured to said ]?os.ts at or near their summitS, With a guy secured to said intermediate .post: at or near distance rod. at its top end, and ·anchf)rel1.tothe gr()und at its bot.tom end. substantially as And ·for the PIJrpose described." .. ' . ·:, this claim Js. ,well .stated by COIl). plainant's .expert, Mr. ,Uoo<!, ip lj,ljls:w:erto question fifthj>f his examina.tion in chief: · , ",
