591
, · I hllve'Q\1ote4. at length from the,specification oCthe 'patent to MOlf that ,the. Gr;innell ;invention was a very simple one, and that it consisted j,n, substituting a defiector, secured opposite the sealed outlet of the pipe, fota with perforations commonly known as the "rose head.is admitted.,that all the elements,including the.deflector,which make up the oOhe patent,are old. What Grinnell did was to take an old deflector which had been in use, on hand hose, and apply it to an ...e-extinguisher. If hahad been the first to construct the deflectpr it woul«! without question have been an invention. If, to Jnakit · practicallY!,Qperative automaticfire-extinguisher, it had been found , to use. a deflector, and Grinnell had been the first to conceive ',this, there might be gr<>und for sustaining the, But it,ilI admitted that the prior Parmelee Wlla 'operative, and used , At tqostthe only an improveand the improvement consisted in, substituting an Wllicb WlU\ old ,and well known in the an.. ·In patent No. gratlted,toG"cE.Jenks, May26,1874, we find described a detc;) that found in the Grinnell patent. It Was .therettsed with hand hose, or fountain nozzles, but its functions same as when applied to an automatic fir&-extingnililher. Unthe l'9les of law as laid down by the courts in cases of this ter, I must hold theG:rinnell patent void for want of patentable novelty, in view of the prior,state of the aIiat the time of the ,alleged, invention. ' Jenks patent, the, Parmelee. patents, and l ,whole prior art disclosed in the record 'before me, I do not think t4at re,ordinary of mechanicto, pJa('e.a deflector upon a or, in other in doiIlgthiIJI do not think there was any exercise of the" patent laws of the United States. This point seems to me 80 clearly decisive of the case that I do not deem it necessary to consider the other questions raised in defense or to further review the state of the art. Bill dismissed.
as
'.
BULLOCK 11. DREYFUSS.
(C(t'cuit Oourt, & D. New York. Ociober,181!O.) rJ.'I'P'l'I
:t:J'dtlhe In
Claims tand' 228,989, iHued JunelS,t880,to LebbeulLltoreJ'S for, a die of an appropriate configuration to do the wor)c of ornamentation for perforating and scalloping pap"r.orof land t;he papjilr,either o'r botn·...:.were anticipated br George FraIike by the use of a du! of substanand with 1l1mllar, configuration and perforations, and, u· tially the same TeS\ll' of we ,emboaslDr, accomplishing jus' whit la dyu 1»7$1iePA'-
' .
'rhos. H. Wa,gBtajf andJiJo03£ & Coe, for !'omplaii:la.JiL Herbin W. Grindal" for defendant.
592
FEDERAL REPORTER,
vol. 43.
WALLACE, J. Theoomplainant alleges/infringement by the defendant of chums land 4: of letters patent No. 228,939, to Lebbtlus H. Rogers June 15, 1880. It is apparent from the specificationthat the essence of the invention patented, as far as the two claims in contro\'ersy are concerned, conslsts.in a die of an appropriate configuration to do the work of ornamentation for perforating and scalloping paper,' orof ornamentation and dividing the paper,-either or both. The configuration of the die m:ust be such as will enable it to punch the paper into the desired pattern of perforations and interlocking scallops, and it may be such as will also enable it to sever the paper along the line of the interlocking scallops. The first claim is for' the method of making the perforated and scalloped paper by the use of the die. The second claim seems to be one for 'a die having only the ornamenting function, but'itmay be capable of an interpretation which will restrict it as one ,fora die having both the ornamenting and dividing functions. Both claims are met and their novelty ovetthrown by the knowledge and use by George Franke, prior to the date of the invention by the patentee, of a'die·essentially in configUration like the die of the patent. The 'silver strips' 'of embossed paper made by Franke with his die show the interlocking pattern and perforations which are substantially those made by tM use'of the patented die; and it is plain, as he testifies, that such die is operative when used upon several sheets of paper, except in the result of the embOSSIng, to accomplish just what is done by the patented die. There ishtHeason to doubt that this die was imported by him and used, ItS he stateS, in 1878. "'In view of this conclusion,it is unnecessary to consider the other defenses which have beellinterposed by the defendant. bill is dismissed, \Vithcosts.
TaJ;:A. 1.
HEATON.
(Oircuit Oourt, D. Massachusetts. 8e-!'tember 0,1890.) A petition to injuries sustained by a seaman, by reason of the alleged negligence of 'the master and owners of the vessel in not providing a suitable gaske,t, f,O,r" th"e fore,sail, c,ann,4)t,be sus,t,ain,ed on the gr,OUnd, of actual personal, negligel).oo it.ltlJpears, that there was plenty of spare rope on board, which ,of"the 'itwll.& the dut;yof the Ipaster to use in keeping the in repair, and there is to show, that the owners seht the vessel to sea 1U an unseaworthy condition, . or were njl,gligent, in the select.ion of a master or otherwise. ,,'
SHIPPING-INJURIES TO SEAMEN-LIABILITY OIl' OWNBR OIl' VESSEL.
\l;SAME__llJVIDENCE., ,.,
, , , The n:(a,te that, bet:oI'e theaccidentJ he the gaskets, "and repol'ted to tl'le master that they were in poor conaition, especially the one in question, and that the latter replied it lasted the last voyage, and he thought it would do this, and that he did not intend to spend much on it, but run it as cheap as he could, because on his return .. .. .. he would be otT, and the ship sold. " HeW, that testimop.y of the master did not reCOllect. being notified of the condition of the gasket, raised no doullt 0'1 the truth of 'the positive testimony of the mate, especially as the master pr4);{essed eq!1l101 torgetfulnell8 olatheI' circum· stances attending the accident.' .