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
ROBBINS II. ILLINOIS WATCH CO.
548
ihjuridtion these patents were ,before 'this and, considered in therlight':of+theprior art as theJ,l-;s!lQwn, in,Same OnnplainCtiliU'v.' ,Rep. 521"in'w,hich case the Churchreissued'patellt was held valid, and the case to the Colby pl1:tent,on the ground of noninfringement.,; . ;: Infringernent is <rharged in this <lase as to the ,first,third, fourth, fifth, lUld .SiiXth Clahns the, Church reissue, whlch "(1)1 ·AIl'iih improvelrten:t itt stem winding and setting a winding aJidhlmds;;lIetting which is adapted to ,be placed :In engagement with the,win<!Jpg wheel or tbedia\ whe,el by the 10ngitudinr,11 tU,Dvement of a stem ,DO positive c<!nnectjon with train, sup!ltantial1y as and for tbe purpose specified." '. ". . , . '. "(ql- ,As .an improvement in stem Winding ana setflngwatches, a winding aridbandsJ'setting train, which is adapt:ed' ·to be placed in engagement with the winding wheeloi' the dial wheels by thelongitndinal 'movement of a stem arbor"iOld is Dormally in engagement with said dial wheels,f>ubstantially as and,for,thepurpol!!e set forth. : , ' , ,. (4) M! ,an Jmprovementinstem win!lingand setting watches, a Winding ll':ld bandl!!7setting train. VVhich is normally in engagement with the dial 'wheels,in'eombination with arotatable'iltem arbor that has no positive conwith said train, and lS'adapt,'d ,to' be moved 10ngitudinal1y within t11& case stem, to cause said winding and hands-setting train engage with the winding .wheel, and to. be simultaneously disengaged from Said dial wheels, SUbstantially as and for the pUFpose'shown and described. "(5) As an impwvement instam Winding ands,etting VVlltches, a Winding and train, which IS normally in engagement with, the dial wheels. in, combination with a rotatable longitudinally movable stem arbor that hali'nopositive connection with the watch movement, and when moved longitudinally to the inner limit of its motion will cause said winding and said dial wheels and engaged with the setting train to be longitudinally to the ,outer limit of its mowinding wheel, and tion wi,U said train tQ be disengaged from said winding wheel and engaged, said dial wheels, as and for the purpose specified. "(6) :Ali anirnprovement in 'stem winding and setting watches, the combinationof a winding and handa-setting train, which ia normally in engagement with the dial wheels, a stem arbor, having no positive connectionwitb said train;. and an inttlrmeiliate device, whicA is adapted to comm unicate the inward movement of, said stem, arbor to said Winding train. and caJlse, to with the winding wheel, substantially as and for shown ,and described." " ,the , As to the Colby patent, it' is sufficient to say that the same defenses are-made. against it in the record in this case that were urged against it in the Aurora CJompanyG18e, and the complainants did not pl'ess the consideration of that paterit in this case. The operation:cof theChurch:invention was so fully explained in the opinion in the Aurora OompanyCh8e that I do not deem it necessaryto,repeat here what Itberesaid. The defendants in'.this case challenge.the Church patent for want of novelty, and also deny as in the Aurora Oompany G18e, and have put in all the: testimony upon the question of novelty which ,was heard in that ·case, and, in addition to the evidence submitted in that case on the issue of want of .!lovalty.< defendants have put into this case other Amer-
544
)1'EI>ERAL REPORTER,vol.
50.
ioan .and' 'Englisb:!patents l as' follows: McNaughton & Fitzgerald pat1874; Lefortepatent,ofApril 6, 1880; Mueller patentbfJanul1.ty 28, 1881j,;Hoyt 7, 1878;Uillick patent ofMarch 9, 1880jJacot'patent 27, 1864; Norden patent of August 17, 1869jJMontandon patent of January 28, 1873; Whittaker patent of November 13,1877; Powell English patent, 1871j Whittaker English patent of 1875j Mitchell & Gartner' patent of 1856. A .careful study of tlleae additional, patenta. as well.as a re-examinationof those considered in· the former case, has failed to change the conclusion, announced in tb'litcase as tothenpvelty and validity of the device coVeted by the Churchpa:tent as reissued. There is therefore no questio.Q lElft that ofinfripgel1let,lt. " . , ' A.;:omparlson of the. Church with the defendants' watches, ,ahownin evidence, anda. consideration of the expert testimony in the caaG, l3atisfies me that the defendants' watches embody all the essential elements of the Churchwatch, as covered by this reissued patent. Both to the of the winding .and ..· , In each case th+B yoke IS acteli upon by two opposmg sprmgs, and the.ot4er the setting, engagement. In .one to obtain the bothithespring producing the setting is the stronger of the twojhence, when they are equally free to act, this stronger spring controls the action of the train, and 'automatically puts it hilo setting engagement., In other watch would normally be in setting enif these were left to the operation of their respecengagement is effected by tive forces. In each,. w"i\.tch the restraining the action of the stronger spring, and allowing the weaker one only to act without restraint. In both watches this stronger spring is held out,ofaction b,}"pressing the stem arbor inward, and locking it at t4e posi.ion, In both the resttaining force upon the means, of a short pin or nib upon the slidslem, arbor,aJid in each the ipward movement of the stem arbor bends and'holds the strong spring from its normal work, and the withdrawal or the stem arbor releases this spring, so that it at once brings the train It true that in defendants'watch there are SOIne slight changes in the shape and location of the operative parts, and by reason of these changes intermediate'levers and pins are interposed at some points I and dispensed with at others, to effect the connections and movements of the operative parts, which, as I think, is quite tersely stated by the complainants in their brief: "The operative parts of each watch receive power ftom the same source, under the same conditions, transmit it to the satne destination for the same purpose, ,and with the same result." The defendants' watCh, so far as the features in question are concerned, is constructed in accordance with a patent granted to T. F. Sheridan, January 3, 1888. Since this, suit was brought,a reissue of this patent has been applied for and obtained. No new claims are introduced by the reissue,and the only object of the 'reissue seems to have been to change the,description and object of the devices.
BOBBINS tI. ,COLUMBUS \'tA'1'CH 00.
I do not, see how this reissue can affect the issues in this suit, or protect the defendant in the manufacture or sale of such watches as are .hown in evidence to be the product of the defendant company. The Ipecifications, as amended by the reissue, show how a lever.set watch may be constructed tiS one form of the Sheridan device, but, as defendants' right to make a lever·set watch is not in question here, it does not seem necassary to consider or pRSS upon this feature of the case. A decree may therefore be entered, finding that defendant the Illinois Watch Company has infringed the claims of th e Church patent, as charged, and that complainant is entitled to' an injunction and accounting, and that the bill be dismissed for want of equity as to the Colby patent, on the ground of non-infringement, and also dismissing the bill for want of equity as to the individual defendants Jacob BUDD, George A. Bates, IIIld George C. Gubbins.
RoBBINS
et al.
fl. CoLUMBUS WATCH
Co. tJ aI.
(Circuit Court. B. D. OMo. E. D. May 7, 1899.) No. 506.
L
PATI!INTB POB INVBNTIONS-RE18SUB-ExP>vATON OP CLAIMS-WATCBl!I8.
In reissued patent No. 10,631. granted August', 1885, to Robbins and Avery, claim 1 was as follows: "As an improvement in stem winding and setting watches, a winding and bands-sEltting train, which is adapted to be placed in engagement with the winding wbeel or the dial wbeels by the longitudinal movement of.a stem arbor that has no positive connection with said train, sUbstantially as and for the purposes specified." Tbe first clailli of tbe original patent was for tbe same, with the additional condition that the train is norm.ally in witb the setting wbeels. HeW, that tbe objection that the claims of the reissue are broader and more comprehensive tban the original is obviated by the clause "substantially as and for the purpose specified, "which relates back to tbe ,original specifications and drawings, and brings them into the claims. RobMn. v· .Aurora Watch 00.,43 Fed. Rep. 526, followed.
I.
SAMB.
And hence claim 8, which is for "a winding- and hands-setting train, which I. adapted to be placed in engagement with the winding wheel or the dial wheels by the longitudinal movement of a stem arbor, and is normally in engagement with such dial wheels, substantially as and for the purpose set forth... is not objectionable for expansion on the ground tbat the corresponding claim of the originllol adds the condition that the w.inding arbor Is witbout positive connection. Robbins v. .Aurora Watch 00., 43 Fed. Rep. 526, followed. These claims are not objectionable as being claims for results or functions ratlier than for devices, for the concluding phrase relates back and includes in them the devices shown by the specifications and drawings of the original patent. RobMns v. Auroral'Vatch 00., 43 Fed. Rep. 526, followed.
8.
SAME-CLAIMS FOB RESULTS.
"
&liB-ANTICIPATION-WATCH WINDING AND SETTING MECHANJSM.
Reissued patent No. 10,631, August', 1885, to Robbins and Avery, trustees, under mesne assignments from the inventor, Church, for an improvement in stem winding and setting watches, embodied the following elements: A winding and setting train, mechanically unconnected to a short stem arbor,capable of winding and setting the watch by its rotation; also adapted to be pushed Into winding engagement by the inward movement of the stem arbor, and automatically shifting to the Betting engagement whenever the stem arbor is withdrawn from its winding position. Held, that this was not anticipated by a one Wheeler for a lever set movement, with a train shifted by means of a lever or finger bar from the winding to the setting engagement, which train, however, cannot be shifted by a longitudinal movement by the "tem arbor, for its arbor has no such movement, and no relation to the train by which such a movement could produce the desired result.. V .50F.UO. 7-35