CORSER V. BRATTY.EBORO OVERALL CO.
805
members of the privileged class, and establish their right to remain by proof of that character. The right of the defendants to land in this country on the claim of being students was dependent upon t4eir producing to the collector of customs, at the port of their arrival, the certificate required by section 6 of the act of 1882, .as amended; and to entitle them to remain here they must thereafter produce the same to the proper authorities whenever lawfully demanded. But not only do the defendants fail to show that their entry into and residence in the United States was lawful, ,and under a certificate showing that they belonged to a privileged class, but it appears affirmatively that they were at that time the minor children of a Chinese laborer, .and that they are still minors. The status of the defendants, under the laws, was that of the father. The policy of the exclusion acts is to prohibit the entry into the United States of the entire class of Chinese laborers as a class. In re Ah Quan, 10 Sawy. 222, 21 Fed. 182; In re Ah Moy, 10 Sawy. 345, 21 Fed. 785; In re Li Foon, 80 Fed. 881. The defendants belonged to that class upon their arrival in this country, and they so continued up to the time of their arrest; and, ,not having the certificate as required by section 6 of the act of May 5, 1892, as amended by the act of November 3,. 1893, they were not entitled to remain in the United States; and should have been deported. JUdgment reversed.
CORSER v. BRATTLEBORO OVERALL CO. (Circuit Court, D. Vermont. 1. PATENTS-INVENTION.
April 1, 1899.)
Overalls with an upward extension or bib in front being old, there is no invention in maldng a similar upward extension of about the same height at the back, for the purpose of eXcluding dust and cinders, and permitting the use of short suspenders, which require no crosspiece to prevent them from slipping from the shoulders.
2.
SAME-OVERALLS.
The Corser patent, No. 366,621, for an improvement in overalls, is void as to claim 3, for want of invention.
This was a suit in equi(y by Brackett G. Corser against the Brattleboro Overall Company for alleged infringement of a patent for an improvement in overalls. James L. Martin, for plaintiff. Kittredge Haskins and William E. Simonds, for defendant. WHEELER, District Judge. This suit is brought upon letters patent No. 366,621 applied for .November 12, 1886, dated July 12, 1887, and granted to the plaintiff for an improvement in overalls. The patent covers several different features by various claims. All of it that relates to the one in question is in the specification: "At Figs. 3 and 9 I have represented a portion of the rear of a pair of overalls; the customary style being indicated in dotted lines, and all impronment jn full lines. The back is extended upwardly about as high as the
93 FEDERAL REPORTER. /" I ' . I
-.i
usual height of a bib. shorter; i ' J
This excludes cinders and dust. The suspenders are :is to prevent ltbemfrom slipping from .the .. ' '
'Alfi.d iiintoiigJ tne daiItlS
" " '
.' I
'
"
,
piece abo¥{!the, }Vaistband, 'wfth fastened to said back,. piece, substan'speell'led;J whel'eby;t1le J custoI11ary strap J cdtmectl'ng 'tlieS'uspenders Is dhfpen.sea i with, "wd, 'a· means" of protetJtimg back ,Immediately! below the shoulder blades, and excluding cinders, Is afforded."
bf
'the upward, with suspenders to Cl:'ossin¢:. or having any Cf()ssPleee.· Oyera1¥lWith, such. an extenSIOn upward III front, to whic);l the suspenders were buttoned or 'buckled, were old, within comlpoh as a bib.. , ,whJltwere' called ."rai.I,rRad of slJrchan upward, the pla41tIff's Inven· h.jO ... au.::pea ..·rsrro. ni'tb.' . ,an. avpears t.. o.oe"reco.g. the . his ..: toduect mthen ex-
.
J
cloth :cam'e; and the difference which I made"between tbis and that is that the back: does comenp asblgh as the front. : Because the back did not COme up as high, they got the straps out of the web. By adding on some foUl' 01' five inches onto the height of the baclt, * * * adding It onto the 12, * * * I could make the straps four or five inches shorter, and get the straps out between the legs."
that theY werl!! then making,' Would notcofne 'up so high as the fold of the
oV:l)ra.U·
then
.orit,anp. "the back,
tl,Ie 12 overall
On cross-examination:
to' 'this he
an'
And was not that ·!thigh-back railrolld overall? rtwas not as high back as Exhibit 2 or Exhibit Q. (13G) Was It not called a 'high-back overall' 'I I. never .It, Sltlledso." (:1.37),'Vaslt not ,,:ith.a high back? My remCmbr'auce cut Uke one. of these eXhibits here. (138) Was It Dot 6verltli .h'avilig'a back' 'libove 'the. t}rdlnary waistband? It was one like Efll1bit: 12." .., ':'" , ,. . . "
The back of the alleged IllfrmgeIIii:mt extends upward about four from the waistband"and has. wide suspenders/which fill the upper Side of the extension, cross, and are fastened together at about the height of the bib, and go over the shoulders, without any, crosspiece, making a tight back up to. about the shOulder blades, where the penders cross; iandabove, to where they separate, and of the width of one suspender where they cross, of both where they separate, and of both where they are attached to the upward extension. of. ithe bade Suspenders, widej:as well as otherwise" :4?1'Ossed to keep. them on the shouldel's, and fastened together where they cross, were old and wen known. . Th'l1s,this supposed :infrlngement 'Appears td be like the prior railroadover.alls, 'withcrossM wide sus.penders attached to the upper side of the backtextension. ,:The suspenders do not leave the back extension at tbeeorners to;gtJ over the shoulders separately, unless the whole is considered as back:extension all the way up to where the sllBpendersseparate. As overalls, and overall backs and fronts, and suspenders, wide and otherw:ise, were all old, the plaintiff could have
CORSER V. BRATTI.EBORO OVERALL CO.
807'
a valid patent only for his specific improvements upon them in these respects.' Railway Co. v. Sayles, 97 U. S. 554. In that case Mr. Justice Bradley said: "If one inventor precedes all the rest, and strikes out something which indudQs and underlies all that they produce, he acquires a monopoly, and sub.ieets them to tribute. But if the advance towards the thing desired is gradnal, and proceeds step by. step, so that no one can claim the complete whole, then each is only to the specific form of device which he produces, :l1ll1 el'cry other inventor is entitled to his own specific form, so long as it (Urrel'S fnlln those of his competitors, and does not include theirs."
The plaintiff's improvement here consisted in making the back higher. . The alleged infringement consists in using wide, crossed suspt'lHlel's. If his improvement could be said to covel' extending the IJaek of the overalls upward as high as the bib for the protection of the back of the wearer, the extension would be like the bib at the front, and would be merely putting that device to the same use, in a new place, in the same garment, for the same purpose. Such putting to a new use does not constitute patentable invention. The cases to this e!fed in the supreme court of the United States are too numerous for ('ita tion in detail, and this principle of patent law is too well settled to justify it. In Potts v. Creager, 155 U. S.597, 15 Sup. Ct. 194, several of these cases were examined, and Mr. Justice Brown said: the devic' to its new use would occur to a person of ordinary mechanical skill, it is only a case of double use, but if the relations between them be re: mote, and especially if the use of the old device produce a new result, it may at least involve an exercise of the inventive faculty." Hew use be so neaTly analogous to the former one that the applicability of
"As a result of the authorities upon this subject, it may be said that, if the
As soon as the want of a high back, as well as a high front, should be felt, the exercise of mechanical skill, without inventive genius, would provide it. 'rile plaintiff appears to have exercised good judgment and high sJdll about this, but not inventive genius or faculty in construction or discovery. And, with high backs to any fair extent, the making them higher would be merely carrying forward the same idea, although to a result more perfect, arid would not seem to be patentable. Wright v, Yuengling, 155 U. S. 47, 15 Sup. Ct. 1. These considerations make the examination of other questions urged unnecessary. Bill dismissed.
OORSFJR v. BRAT'I'LEBORO OVERALL 00.
(Circuit Court, D. Vermont. 1.
PATENTs-VAUDrTy-SUGGESTION OF INVEN'I'ION BY OTHERS.
A merely oral and casual suggestion by another to the patentee of a ll:ll't of the improvement covered by the patent is not sufficient to make the same in'alid. AND BeTTON HOLDER.
EAME-METALLIC
The Corser patent, No. 372,062, for a combined metallic buckle and button holder or hole, discloses patentable invention, and is valid.
This was a suit in equity by Brackett G. Corser against the Brattleboro Overall Company for alleged infringement of a patent.