PARTICULAR PATENTS-Continued.
45. MARGOT'S DESIGN FOR WATCH-CASE-DOUBT AS TO NOVELTY-INJUNCTION,
NISI.-Validity of Design Patent No. 12,775, granted February 21, 1882, to
Eugene F. Margot for a design for a watch-case, doubted for want of novelty.
Injunction nisi granted. * Margot v. Schnetzer et al., 318.
46. Matthews-Soda-WATER FOUNTAIN.-Reissue Letters Patent 9,028 granted to
John Matthews January 6, 1880, for an improvement in soda-water fountains,
examined and sustained as to the fourth, sixth, eighth, and ninth claims, held
not infringed as to the first claim, and void as to the fifth and seventh. Mat-
thews v. Spangenberg et al., 123.
47. MCCLOSKEY'S SOFT-METAL TRAPS.-Letters Patent No. 220,767, granted to John
McCloskey, October 21, 1879, for an improvement in soft-metal traps, de-
clared invalid. McCloskey v. Hamill, 297.
48. FORMER DECISIONS AFFIRMED.—Decisions of the court in McCloskey v. Du Bois
et al. (19 O. G., 1286) and McCloskey v. Du Bois (20 O. G., 1086) affirmed.
*Id.
49. MERRILL-KNITTING-MACHINES.- Letters Patent No. 140,635, granted July 8
1873, to George Merrill, for an improvement in knitting-machines, construed
and limited. *New York Belting and Packing Company et al. v. Sibley, 227.
50. MILES-BAIL-EARS.-The first claim of Letters Patent No. 147,343, granted Feb-
ruary 10, 1874, to the Double-Pointed Tack Company, as assignees of Purches
Miles, the inventor for an improvement in bail-ears—namely, "1. The com-
pound staple-fastening d for bails made with the diagonally-cut penetrating
points 2 and 3, loop 4, and body 5, said diagonally-cut points being posi
tioned as set forth, so as to bend upwardly in driving into the wood, as set
forth"-does not, in view of what existed before in the art, set forth any pat-.
entable invention. *Double Pointed Tack Company v. Two Rivers Manufacturing
Company et al., 458.
51. SAME-NON PATENTABILITY-MECHANICAL SKILL.-It was commonly known
that the effect of a diagonal cut on a penetrating point was to force the
point, in being driven, in a direction away from the cut. Double-pointed
staples, with a diagonal cut on each point, but the diagonal cut on one point
on the upper and outer side, and on the other point on the lower and
outer side, as the staple was driven, were old, the effect in driving being
to bring the points together; and there was nothing more than mechanical
skill in putting the diagonal cuts on the same side of each leg, so as to in-
cline both points in driving in the same direction. *Id.
SECOND CLAIm Declared Void-AGGREGATION.-The second claim of
the patent-namely, "2. The convex metallic washer e, in combination with
the compound bail-fastening staple d, having upwardly-penetrating points
23 and loop 4, as and for the purposes specified "-does not set forth a pat-
entable combination, but only an aggregation of parts. Neither the staple
nor the washer affects or modifies the action of the other. Id.
53. OWENS-STARCH-TRAY.-Patent No. 78,320, May 26, 1868, improvement in
starch-trays, granted to John A. Owens, and Reissue No. 9,732, May 31, 1881,
improvement in manufacture of starch, to said Owens, assignor to Thomas
A. and William T. Jebb, held to be devoid of patentable invention, and
therefore invalid. "New York Grape Sugar Company v. Buffalo Grape Sugar
Company et al., 460.
54. Parker-FlY-TRAPS.-Reissue Letters Patent No. 6,811, granted to John
Parker, December 21, 1875, for an improvement in fly-traps, examined and
held to be invalid. Reissue Letters Patent No. 6,493, granted to James M.
Harper, June 22, 1875, for an improvement in fly-traps, construed and held
not to be infringed by the defendant's structure. *National Manufacturing
Company et al., v. Meyers, 223.
PARTICULAR PATENTS-Continued.
55. PARSON'S Soap Patent CONSTRUED.-Letters Patent No. 56,259, granted July
10, 1866, to C. C. Parsons for an improvement in the manufacture of soap
construed and limited. *Parsons v. Colgate et al., 319.
56. SAME-NOT ANTICIPATED.-Not anticipated by English patents of Maria Bonn-
sall Rowland, May 19, 1857, John Henry Johnson, October 30, 1863, or Morean
and Ragan, August 6, 1862. *Id.
57. PLIMPTON-SKATES.-Letters Patent No. 55,901, granted June 26, 1866, to James
L. Plimpton, for improvement in skates, declared void. "Plimpton v. Winslow,
260.
58. PUBLIC USE OR SALE.—Where skates containing an improvement on an earlier
patent held by the same inventor were in use or were offered for sale by the
same inventor, whether actually sold or not, more than two years before his
application for his second or subordinate patent, the latter is void. Id.
59. RICHARDS-GUIDE AND SUPPORT FOR SCROLL-Saws.-Claim 4 of Reissue Letters
Patent No. 1,527, granted to John Richards, August 25, 1863, for a guide and
support for scroll-saws, the original patent, No. 35,390, having been granted
to him May 25, 1862, for an improved guide and support for scroll-saws—
namely, “4. An anti-friction guide which is adjustable, so as to accommodate
different thicknesses of saw-blades, and to compensate for wear, in combina-
tion with the upper portion of a web saw-blade, substantially as set forth ❞—
does not cover an arrangement in which a baud saw is used, passing over
wheels and running constantly in one direction toward the table on which
the stuff lies, and having a tension over the peripheries of the wheels. "J. A.
Fay & Company v. Cordesman Brothers et al., 474.
60. SAME-CLAIM 5 Construed.-Claim 5 of said reissue-namely, “5. The com-
bination of the anti-friction saw-support and guide, or the equivalent thereof,
with an adjustable guard, or its equivalent, substantially as and for the pur-
pose set forth❞—is not infringed by an arrangement in which such a band-
saw is used, and the guard does not hold down the stuff against the upward
lifting action of the saw, because the saw is constantly passing downward.
*Id.
61. RICHARDSON—Safety-ValvE.-Letters Patent No. 58,294, dated September 25,
1866, and No. 85,963, dated January 19, 1869, both issued to George W. Rich-
ardson for improvements in safety-valves, construed and limited. *Consoli-
dated Safety-Valve Co. v. Kunkle, 167.
62. LETTERS PATENT Nos. 58,294 AND 85,963 CONSTRUED.-The result of the judicial
constructions of the Richardson patents in former suits is to limit them to
the special devices therein shown for obtaining an old result. *Id.
63. LETTERS PATENT No. 58,294 CONSTRUED AND LIMITED-INFRINGEMENT.-The
first Richardson patent requires in specific terms that the space for the escape
of the steam between the flange and ring encircling the expanded valve-head
shall be of less area than the area of escape at the valve-seat, and, as this
peculiarity was not provided for in the defendant's valve and was not in-
tended to be a part of his mechanism, Held that there was no infringement.
*Id.
64. LETTERS PATENT No. 85,963 Construed and Limited-InFRINGEMENT.-The
second Richardson patert construed and limited to the peculiar mechanism
by which the new outlet for the steam is provided, and, as the defendaut
did not employ the same method or devices, Held that there was no infringe-
'ment. *Id.
PARTICULAR PATENTS-Continued.
65. SCHAEFER-SASH-SUPPORTERS.-Reissue Letters Patent 8,672 granted to Charles
A. Schaefer, April 15, 1879, for an improvement in sash-supporters, describ-
ing an arrangement of devices for preventing windows from rattling, and
claiming, inter alia, a cylindrical screw-case holding the plunger, which
presses against the side of the window-frame, is not infringed by a combina-
tion of devices forming a window-catch for holding up the window, and in-
cluding, among other things, the cylindrical screw-case, which, however, is
used for containing a different kind of plunger, to attain the different pur-
pose which is the object of the combination. The two articles as a whole
are unlike, and the objects for which the cylinders are used are unlike. * Judd
v. Babcock et al., 125.
66. SCHILLINGER'S CONCRETE PAVEMENTS.-Reissue Letters Patent No. 4,364,
granted to J. J. Schillinger, May 2, 1871, for an improvement in concrete
pavements, construed and sustained in accordance with the decisions in Schil-
linger v. Gunther (11 O. G., 831; 14 O. G., 713; 16 O. G., 905). Schillinger v.
Greenway Brewing Company, 341.
67. SIEMENS-REGENERATOR FURNACES.-The invention embraced in Letters Pat-
ent No. 41,788, granted March 1, 1864, to Charles William and Frederick
Siemens, for an improvement in regenerator furnaces, is substantially identi-
cal with the invention disclosed in the English letters patent granted to
them dated January 22, 1861, and sealed July 19, 1861. *Siemens et al. v. Sollers
298.
et al.,
68. THE CASE OF DE FLOREZ V. REYNOlds Cited anD APPROVED.-In the absence
of decisions by other courts, the court would have reached the conclusion
that the language of the act of 1861 was intended simply to increase the
duration of all patents thereafter issued, giving to each an additional period
of three years. The question, however, having been fully considered in De
Florez v. Reynolds (17 Blatchf., 436), the court adopts the views set forth in
that case. *Id.
69. CONFLICTING DECISIONS.-In Weston v. White (13 Blatchf., 364) the question
was decided in the same way as in De Florez v. Reynolds. Its decision, how-
ever, was not actually necessary, and was made without discussion. In Goff
v. Stafford (14 O. G., 748) Mr. Justice Clifford held otherwise. Id.
70. SINGER ROCKING-CHAIR.-Letters Patent No. 92,379, granted July 6, 1869, to
Charles Singer, for an improvement in rocking-chairs, construed and the first
claim held to be invalid, it not covering a patentable invention. *Singer Rock-
ing Chair Company v. Tobey Furniture Company, 127.
71. SLAWSON AND WINCHELL FARE-BOX PATENTS Declared VOID.-Reissue Let-
ters Patent No. 4,240, granted to John B. Slawson, January 24, 1871, and Let-
ters Patent No. 121,920, granted December 12, 1871, upon the application of
James F. Winchell to Elijah C. Middleton, for improvement in fare-boxes,
declared void, as the contrivances therein did not involve invention.
* Slaw-
son v. The Grand Street, Prospect Park and Flatbush Railroad Company, 313.
72. SLAWSON'S PATENT-NON-INVENTION.-Slawson's patent shows that the inven-
tion described therein consisted simply in the placing in the ordinary fare-box
used on street-cars and omnibuses of a glass panel opposite to the glass panel
next the driver usually inserted in such boxes, so that the passengers could
see the interior of the box. Such a contrivance did not embody or require in-
vention. Id.
73. SMITH-MACHINE FOR MAKING LACING-HOOKS FOR SHOES.-Letters Patent
No. 259,597, granted to Stephen N. Smith, June 13, 1882, for an improvement
in machines for making lacing-hooks for shoes, construed and held not to be
anticipated by Letters Patent No. 102,195, granted April 19, 1870, to S. W.
Young, or by Reissue Letters Patent No. 9,837, to Lauriston Towne, August
9, 1881. *Smith v. Halkyard et al., 264.
PARTICULAR PATENTS-Continued.
74. SMITH-LACING-HOOK STOCK.-Letters Patent No. 232,561, granted September
21, 1880, to Stephen N. Smith, for an improvement in lacing-hook stock, con-
strued and sustained.
75. SNOW-STEAM BELL-RINGER.-The first claim in Patent No. 127,933, granted to
G. B. Snow, June 11, 1872, for steam bell-ringer, construed to be limited to a
combination in which the piston and piston-rod are detached from each other.
* Snow et al. v. Lake Shore aud Michigan Southern Railway Company, 482.
76. THEBERATH-MODE oF Covering HARNESS-TRIMMINGS.-Letters Patent No.
99,032, granted January 18, 1870, to C. M. Theberath, for an improvement in
the covering of harness-trimmings, Held to be invalid for the reason that the
invention was in public use more than two years prior to filing the applica-
tion, that fact appearing from the admissions of the plaintiff upon cross-exami-
nation. Theberath v. The Rubber and Celluloid Harness Trimming Company, 205.
77 TODD-WASH-BOARDS.-Reissue Letters Patent No. 6,673, granted to Mrs. P.
Duff, E. A. Kitzmiller, and R. P. Duff, October 5, 1875, for an improvement
in wash-boards, on the surrender of original Letters Patent No. 111,585,
granted to Westly Todd, as inventor, February 7, 1871, are not infringet by
a wash-board constructed in accordance with the description contained in
Letters Patent No. 171,568, granted to Aaron J. Hull, December 28, 1875.
*Duff et al. v. The Sterling Pump Company, 248.
78. TODD PATEnt Construed and Limited.-In view of prior inventions, the
claims of the Todd patent must be limited to the form shown—namely, projec-
tions bounded by crossing horizontal and vertical grooves—and do not cover
diamond-shaped projections bounded by crossing diagonal grooves. *Id.
79. SAME. In the field of wash-boards made of sheet metal, with the surface broken
into protuberances formed of the body of the metal, so as to make a rasping-
surface and to strengthen the metal by its shape, and to provide channels for
the water to run off, Todd was not a pioneer, but merely devised a new form
to accomplish those results; and his patent does nor cover a form which is a
substantial departure from his. *Id.
80. WELLING-COMPOSITION.-Letters Patent No. 98,727, granted to William M.
Welling, January 1, 1870, for an improved composition resembling horn, de
clared void for want of patentable novelty. Welling et al. v. Crane et al., 130.
81. White ShoR-TIPS.-Reissue Letters Patent No. 8,536, granted January 7, 1879,
to Hugh White, for an improvement in shoe-tips, construed and limited to a
"shortened vamp"-that is a vamp which ends substantially where the box-
toe begins as the means of uniting the box-toe and tip to the upper, while
defendant's vamp is carried for the full length over the toe and lasted with the
sole, Held that there was no use of plaintiff's invention. *White et al. v. Lee, 245.
82. WHITE'S GLOBE-HOLDER PATENT AGAIN DECLARED VOID.-Decision of the
United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York (White v.
Gleason Manufacturing Company), declaring Reissue Letters Patent No. 7,286,
granted August 29, 1876, to J. White, for a globe-holder, invalid, affirmed.
*White v. E. P. Gleason Manufacturing Company, 325.
83. WINCHELL'S PATENT-MECHANICAL CHANGE.-The Winchell patent for light-
ing the interior of the fare-box at night covered simply the making of an
aperture in the top of the fare-box, and turning the rays of the head-lamp
through it into the box by means of a reflector. In other words, it was the
turning of the rays of light to the spot where they were wanted by means of
a reflector, and taking away an obstruction to their passage. * Slawson v.
The Grand Street, Prospect Park and Flatbush Railroad Company, 313.
84. SAME-OLD DEVICES.-The elements of the contrivance-namely, the fare-box,
the head-light, and the reflectors-were all old. Devices similar to this were
as old as the use of reflectors. The new application of them does not involve
invention. * Id.
PARTICULAR PATENTS—Continued.
85. WINTERGERST'S VAPOR-BURNER PATENT DECLARED INVALID.-Reissue letters
patent granted to Christoph Wintergerst, July 1, 1879, for an improvement
in vapor-burners, declared invalid, the scope of the invention as well as the
claims in the original patent having been changed and expanded in the re-
issue. *Doane & Wellington Manufacturing Company v. Smith, 328.
86. WOOD-CAR-BRAKE SHOES.-Letters Patent No. 45,106, granted November 15,
1864, to Joseph Wood, for an improvement in car-brake shoes, and Letters Pat-
ent No. 49,948, granted September 12, 1865, to James Christy, for improvement
in car-break shoes, examined and compared, and Held that the former patent
is not infringed by the latter. *National Car Brake Shoe Company v. Boston &
Albany Railroad Company et al., 204.
PARTIES TO SUIT. See Assignments, 6; Bill in Equity, 1; Disclaimers, 1; Injunction,
6; Licenses, 1; Service of Process; Title to Patent, 3.
1. INFRINGEMENT-LIABILITY.-The only persons who can be held for damages for
the infringement of a patent are those who own or have some interest in the
business of making, using, or selling the thing which is an infringement,
and an action at law cannot be maintained against the directors, sharehold-
ers, or workmen of a corporation which infringes a patented improvement.
* United Nickel Company et al. v. Worthington et al., 196.
2. LICENSEE-When CannOT SUE IN HIS OWN NAME.-A mere license to make and
use, without the right to grant to others to make and use, the thing patented,
though exclusive, will not authorize the licensee to bring suit in his own name
for infringement without joining the patentee. Semble, if the patentee re-
fuses to join, a court of equity can give a remedy to the licensee.
· Chickering et al., 258.
PARTS OF INVENTION. See Combinations, 1, 2, 4, 5; Construction of Specifications and
Patents, 2; Infringement, 4, 7, 8, 11, 18, 20; Interferences, 2.
PATENTABILITY. See Aggregation; Combinations, 4, 10; Designs, 3; Invention, 1, 2,
3; Non-Invention, 1; Trade-Marks, 9.
1. OLD DEVICES-MERE MECHANICAL CHANGE.-A rocking chair constructed to
move upon a stationary platform having a base or rails upon which the rock-
ers move, the base being tongued and the rockers grooved so that one fits into
the other, the ends of the base being elevated to prevent the rockers from
working off, with flexible rubber bands connecting the rockers to the rails of
the stand to prevent the seat from moving back and forth on the rails or rock-
ing too far either way, is a mere mechanical change from chairs in previous
use, and in such a device there is nothing that can be the subject of a patent.
*Singer Rocking Chair Company v. Tobey Furniture Company, 127.
2. COMBINATION OF OLD ELEMENTS.-Where the patentee attained the result of
producing a new thing-a silver-plated steel spoon-by a succession of old
processes, which, though separately old, had not been practically grouped
together in the order in which he used them, it is a patentable novelty in pro-
*Wallace v. Noyes et al., 147.
3. PRINCIPLE-METHÓD-APPARATUS.—There can be no patent for a mere princi-
ple. The discoverer of a natural force or scientific fact cannot have a patent
for that; but if he invents for the first time a process by which a certain
effect of one of the forces of nature is made useful to mankind, and fully de-
scribes and claims that process, and also describes a mode or apparatus by
which it may be usefully applied, he is entitled to a patent for the process of
which he is the first inventor, and is not restricted to any particular form
of mechanism or apparatus by which he carries out that process. American
Bell Telephone Company v. Dolbear et al., 160.
|