'OI.rnIEN1'M!1'lW'QdCo. tJtM. 10"]I:'i :,:;": :',1
f.'LLd:, 'if)
.
tI.UPSON ':".
k HART !Oa. " aI. \ inn' . .;
':id DdJ oj !)::::rfJL)',,:(i r
No. 68i.
.!,
I
j
: riA
,itlg B.ulB-'Il'lPRINGBMENT.' , " ',,' " " ",,',," . In the the handle was fonned of areotangttlarplate, which was f,omt,ed'1b.W 'Ii. CYl,In,4'8," ,i:tM i Dill.t. b.ein,K welded.:.'" This W."B'then raIsed to a welding 1ffil\,PI1W64, 80 tb,lLt \h,e ,blOW: of the, a lap,w:eld " tii:e.1iJid'of , having: lobes or projections at ' .. j \hel\tlt(M¥Jli.Ud\ 'aftei"ljell'!t)forined' lliW a cy:llhder. lobes were benUnwards,' "'-tthe iq l40nlItntl¢ted tqlL,t formation tbey and there
tttb({hii:h8I1liie tti
In tQewanufactture of,cutlery and toofs, consistIng In. siiDqltaneously weldinI' and closing up the op'posIWend'ofthe handle by foq-
¥ar 1,7, 1881,W
TOOLS; aJllmpro'V&-
Repl' 4 1r42' Fed. Rep.·j)30; 43l'«1;Rep., :1 , Edwdrtl/'F; 'Beach llnrdJ'. E. Maynadier, for plaintiffs. .' \fo1Wj, i
. 11'61'1 ril9r loP.·iriions i r.tltiIilr :ther}pateFitSin' litigation, see 40 'Fed. · defllndants.' L' ,: I' ·
In ErUity .
Bill for infringement of patents. .Dislhis!!led; .' .
I SUIPIIIAN,Oircuit J1I1dge. ',This is: a bill in :equity.,whicb Is based. upoh',tlie:aIleged infringement :oflett4lrs patent 471, dated May :l8Sl!. to James foran·improlVememt·in the manufacture of c1111l'r,y:aridtools,' and of letters patent No", 368;061, dated August 9, 1881', W Henry A. Brognard, for:improvements in::the manufacture of hardware;Jiavinghollow handles... Before the date of the butt ends oftbe hollQW hari<Ues" of cutlery' had. been 'olosedup or welded. by striking the tmdB"'itb die,:the blade ,being welded to 'the otherend'of inettlbularbandle at a priol'l or subsequent operation; ,been formed by simultaneously welding a tubular dle'to'ilbladefland.' closing: up the: opposite or butt end of the handle, operation;ibeing performed by: !forging between dies. -The gen&J'& object, i0f.llheiBeecher inNention 'wastX> do this thing. The inventionis:qeseribed,byitbe patentee in his specification as ,follows, omittingthe ,referendesoo,to& dJiawings:, , ',: . "I /provIde a 'tactsDgular'blank of sheet trob, whIch Ii form over a mandrel· Weld rl1P, in cross · dElsil;'1d .,tor: t118 :The size. to. ·.. '" i '" !'\t.eel blade is ot the ordinaryconstruO';' Ifpt9Vltled or tang at barilUe,b1 which U.is umt&i thereto, as presently tobe descrIbed. Tlie tobula't babBle IU1d- b1ad"l :naving,lAAln' raised to a proper welding heat iIl a furnace, are the.D! Tllmqvielfl4ibetefrom.\! The. ial'lg,'of;tbe blade isJns.el'ted into one of the open ends of the handle, and the handle and blade are placed between a pair of forming dies, the conformation of which corresponds with that desired for the handle, and the concavity of which is of slightly less length than the partially formed handle. The application of the impact of a drop hammer to the dies and the contained blade and handle is then made,
t
639 c]osl'1g result of BimultaneouBly weldiIJg together: the hahdlll al)d blade, and theopell end of the handle furthest ffom the bllLde,"
consists in simultaneously w'alding a tubular handle to a bhide or bead, and closing up the .opposite end of the handle by forging bet.ween dies, substantiallyasset.forth. (2) As a new Rrtide of manufacture, a knife. or other of cut.lery or tool havin.g, handle united by welding to its blade orhe.at;l, and baving its en\ls:closed simultaneously by forging between forming dies, substantially set .. .
The two claims of the patent are as follows: .. (1) The 'improvement ,in'iheart of manufacturing cutlery and toolswbich
The object which Beechel''desired was something more tlHtn merelya simultaneons welding of ,both handle and blade and the610sing of the butt eudof the handle at orie blow. The hollow-handled knives which had been previously made were, as a rule, defective by reason of. imperfect welding at the butt end of tbehandle, and consequent leakage. The acids which were used in the plating process penetrated the interior of the handle, and afterwards leaked out, and this tendency to leaj{age had. been the great obstacle to the manufacture of such knives.Hollow-handled knives which would not leak, either in plating or in use, were a desideratum. It was a matter of common knowledge that if an article was raised throughout its entire extent to proper forging heat, and put in suitable dies, they would act simultaneously upon both ends of the article so placed in them. There was no difficulty in simultaneously welding the blade and handle, and crushing together the edges of the opposite end of the handle. The material part of the simultaneous process was such a construction of the blank and dies us to cause, by a blow upon the sides of the tube, in addition to the welding of the blade and handle, a closing of the open end of the tube in such manner as to produce a complete union of its edges. The shape of Beecher's dies is shown' in the drawings, but it appears both from the specification and the .drawings that the partially tormed tnbe was to extend slightly beyond the length of the concavity Of the dies, and that consequently a portion of the metal must be drawn out between their fiat surfaces, and be welded together as a lap weld. After knives began to be manufactured under this patent as a commercial article, it was ascertained that, under the requirements of manufacturers who plated and thereafter sold the knives, they could not be made at much profit at the price at which they were obliged to be sold. The action of the dies in drawing out between the fiat surface a portion of the metal left "that portion of the edges of the end of the tube, which were covered within the die form insecurely welded, and not of good strength," after the fin was removed. A good many imperfectly welded handles leaked, and must be which seriously diminished the profit. It became apparent that the Beecher form of dies would result number of insecurely welded, handles, and that a new blank and new die were required. In this condition of the practical manufacture of hollow-handled knives, the patent of Horatio Jordan, dated July 5, 1887,. was issued, which described a method of butt welding. the end
: 'l,J'EDERALREPORTERi
V01.50.
M:tlaititbe, which consisted in shaping the end so as to form 100eso1' projections adapted to lie bent inwardly towards each 'other, insubsequently bending them towards each other, and in droR forging. The alsQo,wpep, ,this in equity in tll.w i:nfripgernl;lqt·. ,Tpe history of thearbcSofa'r Bsit felat"tlSto butt welding is given il1.,thc:opinions in 42 Fed,. Rep. 530, and 43 Fed. Rep. 670;' The defendants use a Jordan for the handle, with lobes the end. These'prbjections; befoie the blankis p:qtintothe forging die, are inclined towards each other, so as to substantiallYcover the butt end of the blank·.. mbe handle and 'blade are assembled and simultaneously forged inithe qie. The handle,blank is inclosed<inthe die cavity; instead of block beyond its cavity. "The weld which is cre8ltadat,the butt endbf the handle isa butt weld. " r entertain no question that the Beecher inventioll was patentable. Its history: before and since thedateof:the application satisfies·rne that it was tbe,product of an inventive mind. i d::twas vaguely disclosed in the paten1l,fbutImake no adverse finding upon that point. The important questiOD inithe case relates to the infringement of the patent. The first claim is-for sp1.ocess. The second is for the product of the proce:3s. The inventionconsisted in the described method by which the simultaneous welding, between dies, of handleatid blade, and the closing of the butt end of the in contradistinction from the former' method , which handle I took. two fi>perations bydifJerent set ofldies, one of which closed the butt end,and;the,other which welded .the blade and handle. The complainants claim,in Bubstance,that whenever there is a simultaneous welding of the tllbUlar;handle blank to the stub, and a closing up of the opposite betwel311 dies; :the patent is infringed. Such end :ofthe.handleby apropoSition,lSubstitutes .the result ofthe process for the various steps whiohledr1tothe result. ; The process consists in the various steps by which ,the result is attained, and the question of infringement is to be answbrEidbyascertaini.ng whether the alleged infringer has used in substance"tfle'lsalne" series oiactswhich the patentee describeddn his patent. ThEhUfficulty in the satisfactory solution oHhis :questioll consists in the fact rthn.tdhe Beecher invention was'rudimentary, and the mind, is called unprofitable process with a upon to compare a crude and succtlssful one, and see whether the radical characteristics are the same, andwhetlier the differences are mere'improvements, or a:re substantial differences ,in the two series of acts. Itia also to be borne in mind that the mere noncommercialauccess of the earlier irivention ia a fact which is not to have wejght in discriminating between the two processes. The jirstaet in the Beecher process iato.out out a rectangular blank. The corresponding act in the defendants' process is to cut out a blank with lobes or projections at one end, which are adapted to be bent inwardly. The aecondstep of Beecher is to form his blank over a mandrel and weld it "up into ,tube." This welding was undoubtedly not to be done by the aidoftUe8,but the language shows that the tube was to be closed longitudinally:. The defendants roll their blank over a man-
'at
CLEMENT MA,li\UF'G CO. 11. UPSON & HART CO.
541,
drel, and do DOt close or weld the of the tube. This difference is one merely of form, and not of substance. Beecher then placed the assembledhahdle blank and implement blank, after they had been raised to a welding heat, in forming dies. The result of the impact of a hammer upon the dies was the welding of blade and handle, and the closing of the opposite end of the handle by alap weld. The defendants closed the lobe end of the handle :by hammering, or in some other way, before it and the blade blank wete heated and placed in dies. This preparatory formation of the end of the handle permitted the use of dies of different shape from that of Beecher, which formed a butt weld. The initial difference· between the two processes was the shape of the blanks, which made the subsequent difference in the shape of the dies and in the result of the process attainable. The Beecher process commences with a squarely cut tube, and next inserts the tube in dies so ,shaped that the result of a lap weld is inevitable, while the defendants subject a tube having lobe-like projections to the operation of dies which will make a butt weld. Was this difference-which is one of shape or form, as presented to the eye-a difference which belongs "to the substance of the process." "A process is a mode of treatment ofcertain materials to produce a given result." Cochmne v. Deener, 94 U. S. 780,-which was simultaneous welding of the various parts of a hollow-handled knife, so as to securely close the edges of the butt end of the handle. To accomplish the object, Beecher started with l;l.squarelycut blank, and a pail' of dies which must ml1ke a lap weld. The defEmdants started with a lobed blank, which Wall subsequently known as a "Jeralds & Lawton Blank," and inserted that blank in a pair 'of dies which led to a butt weld. The difference 'in the two processes was radical, not because the latter process made a better commercial result than the other, but because the metal was treatedaod manipulated in a different way, which made a different kind of welding as 'the result of the process. The Brognard invention is explained by the inventor, in his testimony, as follows: , "The thing set forth is a compound blank, made up by RSsemblillg a tubular handle-forming blank and a stub /laving a bolster already formed thereon, so thaUheportions of the tube and stub or blade forming piece at the point of weld will constitute the portion of the device on which the neck is to be formed." The claims are as follows: "(1) 'rhetube or hollow cylinder, and the solid head or blade piece having a bolster formed thereon. assembled together so that the portions of the tube and blade piece at the point of weld will constitute the portion of the device on which the neck is to be formed, substantially as described. (2) The method of manufacturing hollOW-handled cutlery, consisting in welding the head or Wade piece, having a bolster formed thereon, to the handle by means of dies, and effecting that welding by that part of the dies designed to form the neck of the flnJshed handle, snbsta'ritially as described." A bolster in a knife was long ago a well-known part of the article, and couldbepl'oduced by shaping the ,dies accordingly. In the Beecher patent itj,s said:
P£rJER::'U.. REl"l:>RTER,'
vol. 50.
;'1
: of' arty lor: shriuftaneou8Iy WltbltheOniU:ng .ofttbeiblRde and.handThland. the closing Qf,theJiandle end to be 10'.' .':!' ...· ,. ..r
It is claimed that the .bolster of Brogriard has aepeda! ·character in thist!tbatit has a shbulder,i,which defines its exact position in the tube, so' ,that line of· weld conn,eoting· the two pieces will take. place in the or rieckof the handle, where it will be entirely hidden when the, aitticle· ,.is dindshed. :II do ,not pereei\Te anything, of a pRtentable eharacl';er itithisparticular bolster, and patentable, the defendants? fbolsteranchnethod ot: assembling, and manufacturing the compound blank"w.hichare claimed to be an infringement, preceded the date of the ' The bill is dismissed"
RoBBINS et , t! t; I ..;
al. ".
ILLINOIS ,WATCH
Co. et al.
(Ctrcutt Cout't.!f,p. Illinoif,'1{: p. J!'nua1'14, 1892.)
t. ·1'...
Reililluedlettets patent N0. 10,631, granted August 4, 1885, to Royal E. Robbins otlllltllf0l:' a W,heteby the sbifts from the w!pding and. hands-setting engagements to each otber are not effected by tbe diril<'lt force of the· push! and. pUll Upon ,the stem'arbor, but are about by !oD,a1tudinal tb,e.stemarbor. W.biph. bring into action light springs , to, swiI\/ir tbe 'yoke, wbicb carries 't'be winding and setting trains, are not. voidi for'want of novelty. Bobbin8V. AUrom Watch 00.,43 Fed. Rep. 521, fol. lowed. ,'" . ' " . '
'SUch patent'is infringed bya device inwbicb, as in tbe patented watch, a pivoted yoke is used to effect the. of the winding and, setting Wheels, upOD, RYtWO 0PPOSIJ;l.g spring.s, one stronger than the other, the sttonger sprinlfbeihgrestrained when '1ihewinding 'engagement is to be effected, and being held out of action by pressing t.he stem arbor inward, and locking it at. the innerJJ;l08tposition. ll;s.. 'Td' RESTRAINf*:rttlNGEMENT-RliissUll. Wbere an 'infringing deVice is constructed in accordanoa with a junior patent, a rei88ue of tbe .junior patent, ,pending aauit to restrain, the. infringement, doea not. thelluit",wllere no new claims are intr()duce4 by the reissue.
8. BAMlll,...INPlUNGEMBNT.
In Equity. Bill by Royal E. Robbins and otbers against the Illinois' Watch CompanY and others, to restrain, an alleged inlringement of certain patents. ' Hill &; Ditron, for complainants. West &; Bond, for defendants. BLODGETT; Districtj'udge·.'·Thisis,a bill· in equity, charging defendant with the ihfringemen.t of issued to com!>lainant§l August 4, 1885; as assignees of patent No. 280,709, granted to H, Church July 3, for a "stem-winding watch, and patent No.' 287,001, granted 'October 23,1883, to Caleb K.<Colby, for an "improvement in stem-winding watch pendants," and praying an