.. , '. of'1880 there was no tob,tn Xbt iPIprovements which are only 9.f. form I;1.S, to ordinary workmen. ,F?r instance, ring swples, four-prong staples and other staples, varying ,in fdrm, were':very old. It wo.s'6bvious that many of these on the anvil could not be driven, thrdugh the oblong' shit M the 1880plltent. ItWo1:ild naturallybbtmiO ton meohanic who had been llccustqmed to drive round bolts through round 'holes to make the holesquarEfi!'be were ,a' square, b'61t ',to 'drive, So one familiar with the proCessor driving staples throti1thp,aper'would Bee at once the impossibility :of'making'a' cruciform, fasteningthi-6ugh an oblong slot. lfhe, Wisped the lltaplesto:ctosS'l;1.t right angles' he "'ould naturally make a:cfo$8"'shllPed: 'I.dot and 'clhichinK base. If 'he wished to use a staple with ring he' would at once 'see 'the necessity of making room tor thEfring to pass!; 'Such changes seem so perfectly obvious that heWhQ': xpade them would require' 'no assistance from the prior art. ' If, hdwe1er,' he nee<lMadvice, he had only to turn to the Magill and other' patentll to' find theinformation<:readyat his hand. Conced· ing that the :patent in hand shows impro,Tements over the patent of 1880, they are n6t improvements whichthe'law recognizes as patentable; they maybe' more theYI>etforni no new function and produce' 110' JIew rtl$ult. bill isdisriiissed,with coatI!!. ! "', '
L.:
,
BERGNlllR' et al. ,',i'j
fl. KAUFMANN
,etal.
, 'Design patent No. 2O,S47,lSBuetl November 211, 1890.. to Frederlok Bergner, for an album case: set upright on, lIond;h$vJng QUi ;tll extllrior ",noval,ornamentalfJ;l\me, ,withan is t\1Il"patentee invented neither the album case nor the otlih'mental frame, but merelY'eoneeived the idea of placing ,the ornament, on the ClJ'8tl;alid, th!ljI oonception is I:!<It patentabllil, for,the statute 9nly prov!qes fol:' patentllpndesigns for of and for ornaments to.beplaoed upon or'workedtnto suoh artioles. ' :1' I .
C4SES. ,
" "
In Equity. Suitby FrooerickBergner and others against Isaac Kaufmann and others for infringement of a patent. Bill dismissed. W. P. Preble, Jr. j fot'orators. , A. fl. Brie8en, for defendants. WHEEi.ER,District 'Judge. This suit is brought upon design patent No. 20,347 I dated November 25, 1890; fbr an album case set on a baseboard in an upright or neatly v rtical position,' having on its exterior all oval, ornamental frame 'withan:open center. The defendants put dimond-shaped such ornamental borders, on similar album cases. This style of album case is not new. The patent therefore must be held to be for an ornament upon the case as an article of manu-
lUCK
PPTIOAL ,¥ANUl'!a CO.
factur8t under th:e i third
,Rev. St., providip.g for patents. .SucQ,. ornaJJlental were old,and well f!.ndgener... foUy known. who is the, patentee, testifies, in answer. tQ questjO,n26: "l.Qlllke no. claim tol:1e t11e designer ofthis frame," . Besides this, the defend,ants' mirror does not look like this frame, and. would not infringe the patentfor.thisornam,ent. . The orator did QOtdesign an albuDl case, proper; nQr an ornament, proper, for.an alhum case; hut he appears to have.conceived the idea of placing such an ornament upon an album case. The statute provides for patents upon designs for articles of manufacture, and for patents upon ornaments to he placedupQni Qr worked into such articles, hut does .110t appear to provide·for a patent for the mere placing ·of an ornament on such articles. T11is patent d()es not, therefore, appear to .he valid, to ,be infringed. ;. Let a decree he entered dismissing the bill.
MACK:'. 1.
SPl!:NCER OPTICALMANUF'a
Co. et aL
'l'2 yearll old, professing to describe in minute detail alleged anticipating devices whicl1 he constructed 80 years before in the ordinary course of his tr3de;
A patent sl10Uld not be! 'overthrown on. the uncorroborated testimony of. witness
FOB INTBNTIONs-,ANTIOIPATION-EVIDBNOB..
(
.
when not appear that anything' has occurred during that time to ald or refresll his l"l'COllectioJi. 'The Barbed-Wire Patent, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 448, 148 U. So 275,:follllwed. . ROLDBBlI.
II.
Claims · and 1 of letters patent No. 26B.112, iuued November 28, 1882, toWUUam Mack, for improvements in ppera-gla88 holders, show patentable invention,:aIld are valid as covering a detachable telescopic opera-glass holder having at the upper end a clutch or fastening device adapted to clasp the transverse bars' or CYlinder of an opera glass. Mack v. LClJII, 48 Fed. Rep. 69, diatingu1shed. SAME-MEOHANIOAL SKILL.
8.
The opera-glass holder ()f thill patent could not have been the result'of mere meehanicalskill operatingu.pon the: mirror holders, monkey wrenches, oar couplers1 gllnwivers, toothbrushell,and mopll of .the prior art, but required the exercille 01 inventive faculty. patent No. 889,548, inued March 19, 1889,to tile lame inventor, possess no patentable invention, in 80 far as they merely provide tor corrugations on the telescopic sections of his prior patent to prevent tWisting, and for the substitution of a longitudinally forked attaching device for the oril{inal clutch.
,. SA14E.
In Equity. Suit for infringement o(two letters patent granted to William Ma.ck·. These patents have been the subject of judicial depision, onfinal.hearing, in Mack.v.Levy, 43 Fed. Rep. on contempt proceedings,in the same cast', 49 Fed. Rep. 857; apd 011 motion for a preliminary injunction in the suit at bar, 44 Fed. Rep. 346. Decree for .complainant. H. A . .West, for complainant. Charles a. Gill, for deitmdants.