K'EVILLi". BALL
&;
'SHELVINLUMBER CO.
139
McEVTI,LA 'V. HALL
&
SHELVIN LUMBER
Co.
(OirCU'£t Oourt, D. Minnesota. August 27, 1890.) PATENTS POR INVENTIONB-ANTIOIPATION-SAW-MILLS.
Letters patent No. 377,630, issued February 7, 1888, to Henry McEvllla, for 1m provement in reciprocating saw-mills, consisting in the combination with the feed mechanism and diViding shaft, of upper and ,lower slides carrying the saw-gate, such 'lower slides having the pins on which they oscillate located below the top of the slides, were anticipated by letters patent No. Hi6,193, issued October 20, 1&74, for an invention exactly the same except as to the location of said pins.
In Equity. P. H. Gunc1cel, for complainant. Paul & Merwin, fOf deftlDdant. NELSON, J. A suit is brought in equity for an infringement ofletters patent No. 377,630, granted February 7, 1888, to I;Ienry McEvilla, for improvement in reciprocating saw-mills. The alleged infringement is confined to the first claim of the patent. The defenses are anticipation and, non-infringeJ;Ilent. The first claim is as follows: . "In combination with the feed mechanism. and the dividing shaft ofthesRWmill gang, upper arid lower slides ('arrying the saw gate or (rameand me.cbanism suhstantJally 8.uch as shown for oscillating thp lower slides connected witb and driven by tIll} main driVing shaft, said lower slides having the on the top of the slides aM above the pin 'on' which they oscillate the lower girder of the gate when the latter is at the upper limit of its stroke. wherebythe saws are ,made to recede from the log at the start, and thus the cut at, the first quarter of the stroke equalized with the cut during the stroke. as specified," In the specification, it is said: '''fhe inventton may therefore be said to consist in so thA lower slides. upon which the saw or saws fE>ciprocate in a gang or other reciprocating saw-mill. that the pins upon which they oscillate shall be in such a position relatively to the pins the lower entI of the gate orsaw a, to equalizethe cntduring the first quarter of the down stroke with the other three parts of the silme, and free the saw or saws completely during the up and. fluther, to the devices 'employed for'changing the position of the upper slides to give the rake correspondiug with the rake of feed given to the log or cant, " etc. The purpose of the invention is to overcome the continually speed of a saw driven by a crank having ,a uniform rate of revolution by IDeanS which will so regqlate the movements of the saw as to fullyequalize the cut in the down stroke, and giveeffectivedearanca upon the up stroke, so that the teeth shall each perform its proper part of the work in the down stroke, and he kept away from the front of the cut'during the up stroke. The changing speed ofa saw increasing and decreasi'ng is due to the pitman or such other to connect the crank with thineciprocating body. Tbe location of the pins on .which thEdower slide oscillates below the top of the slide and above the pins on the lower girder of the gate wbenit.isat its extreme uppertravelequalizEisthe:ctit,
140
·DDERAL REPOR'J'ER,
vol. 43.
it is claimed, in the down stroke, and gives effective clearance upon the stroke,so a uniform anc;l unchanging speed is secured. If the location of this pin on which the lower slides oscillate below the top of the slide, instead of being above the top, makes any difference in the result, then perhaps the defendant's improvements involve a patentable invention, but if the location of the pin above or below the top is a change in form, and not in substance, and the diflerence in result, if there is any, is one of degree, then McEvilla has no patentable invention. A patent was granted to 1. B..Wayne (No. 156,193) on October 20, 1874, in which the only substantial diffel'ence of construction in the mechanism employed is the location of the pins on which the lower slides oscillate just above the top of the slide; and the complainant's expert Redfield, in describing the McEvilla invention, admits that the location of the pin does not change the results obtained, and although he says the feature in the McEvilla patent of having the pivot of the slide at ull times above the pivot in the lower end of the sash-frame is peculiar, and nofgeneral in saw-mills, he thinks thechange in location would make fiOmaterial difference in the operation of the machine, except a difference' ;of quality, rather than tof kind. The patents of Wayne and McEvilla ar,e substantially identical in the results obtained.· In both the pins which oscillate the lower slides are above the pins on the lower guide'S of the gate when the latter iaat the upper limit of its stroke, but the pins oq\'fhich the slides oscillate in the McEvilla patent below the tC)P ofthe Slidell., which location ofthepina is not in the Wayne patent. There is no patentable invention in thill. . The Ehlers patent, No. 78,443, granted June 2,1868, reissued as No. 6,185,Decemher 22, 1874; locates the pins on which the slides oscillate below the top of the slide, so that McEvilla was not the first e\1en to do that. Without considering, therefore, the case further, I am of opinion that the. defendant is entitled to a. decree dismiflsing the bill, and it is so ordered. t ApPARATos MA,NUF'GCO.
v.
YARYAN MANUF'G
Co. et
aZ"
(Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsyl.vania. July 8, 1890.) hPATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-EvAPORTING' ApPARATus--NOVELTY.
.
S: " SAME':"-EvIDENCE-AlIlENDMEN'f 011' ApPLICATION TO AVOID PRIOR.PATENT-ADMISSION.' . . . . Yaryan,011e ot tbe defendants, and president of defendant company, wbo was conversant with the art, had applied for a patent for evaporating apparatus, which , was rejected on the first patent in suit. He amended his application to avoid this , patent. Yaryan'l' admissioJ;ls,in tqe patent-office should be regarded aa · the expressions of a competent expert, and as llvldence in support of the validity of the patent in wit. ' . 1
The combination in an evaporating apparatus of parallel evaporating tubes, discharging both liquid and v!lpors directly into a common separatlDg ch!lmber, with a prOVision for an equal and regulated supply of the liquid to be evaporated to each of the tubes, heW.to be a patentable novelty.
Reported by ;Mark
Collet, Esq., of the l;'hile.delphia bar.