:'188
FEDERAL' REPOIt'l'ER,
'Vo1.43.
. ': :
SAME' . 'I(t; ,; L'}
WATE'R :HEA'I'ER&<PuRi'Fnm CO· .,
lB. {>.
lIftlapti'rfi :Ii!. ,D,· ..
"/
.;
,.
ii,
f: ,.
19; 1S99.> -;
C::,', " . ' . The second patelllti Adolphus Meier & Co" assignees of Herman Heine, for the combination, with the upper shell of a water-tube steam-generator, of a muct-drum. mounted below the normal waterline, with its feed and outlet passages at the same end of the drum, is not infringed by tbe device described in k:ltterll-p&teat·No.4l49,187, which consists of a tubular vessel, divided from end to end into two separate compartments, with its feed and outlet passages at the same end; since, in view of the prior state of the art, the former patent must,be restrioted tQ.a mud-drul!l haVing Ql,lt one chamber, as shown in its drawings ." ":." ,/, ',< ,:,.','L'!:'" iJ
In Equity. Tu .I. ; ·...
\,,1)1;,0\,
f,"" J;!
··
.r',. /",:',' l'.
·",-,>'c,:·\'!..i 'H""'·"",'
Paul Bakewell, for complainant. 1i'.11' rI _
0
1_
:;!)'J
THAYER, '"f:I(HThilfia 'ttJ1g5flf 'tit seciond claim of United States letters patent No. 304,195, issued A9gqst,26, 1884, to Adolphus Meier & Co., ' (,,:r,hf:pat-
_
L:iJ
b..a.>
..
rI
d
I"
,,,,,,;'\
:·:i
big ,drum iLf ,t-,;
,sages being at 'the' sameendrof, "tM
outlet' that; the':cnrreilt Is Opposedto tile Jllickwardl'lby, the imthe:Wlltet-
ntirrx'al
9r the claim may be ignored as' irntnatlwial,and' liifnot impOSIng 'ahy IiinifatioQs6n the: chtim'. ,For instance,"itls sliid.-:tnavthe af:lused in" the unimpOrtant, 'anddM§hotlimWthe'pateri'tee' use of. a boilel': having a watet.legjalso"Hrat the'cohc1nding' da'l1seofthe cIaim-"sothiJJt the cuirellt'isi the fee'ddutrerit,(nnd is deiftected'backwardby thie 'upward ,cdTi'ent in the water"leg"':'<";is merely 'descriptivEnl'iattel',. and;ddes not 'tiarro", the cliiim;fri. other'words, comiplainant'lJ 'MUnsel 'construes the, claIm' 'preCisely 'as if: theirivanto( haci , ' , ' : , ' ':, ': "." '-' ,,': ",',,: " '; .", .. "I claim the combinatitm.; with the upper'shelior' (ll'um of 'any 'Bteam;'gener.ator, of 8ilnud-drum, mou1\ted'within below ttie. ,normi1;li; the; andQll tiM, paSsages ',whereof Ml6atr the same end of the mud-drum." .: ':; ,:.:" ,: .,,;,
,.leg/' ;:f P..l 1 ;':u:'" Coxnplf1inanti s counS61c6htends
Furthermore, as the claim contains no forming a part of the combination, other thaQ that it is located within
HEINE SAFETY
V .ANHEUSER.Bt/SCB: BREWING ABS'N. ·
787'.
the boiler below the normal wa,ter.line, and has its feed and outlet pasSllges, at end, iUs contended by complainant thaJ it is immaterial what the form or consttuctionof the in other respects may be; that: the sec<;md elll.itn.:ofthe Heine patent is infringed whenever a mud-drum with feed and outlet passages at the Same end is placed within. the shell oCa steam generator or boiler, below the normalwater-line. If these contentions are. undoubtedly defendants are severally guilty of an infringement; hence the first step towards a decision is to settle the constructipnof Heine's seoond claim, and this involves a preliminaryconsideration of the state of the art at the date of Heine's alleged invention, as well as ll-n examination (If his specification and drawings. . The evidence shows that have· long beenjn use. in connection with steam-generators, the purpose of clarifying and heating feed-w!l'ter,before itcornes in ,contact with thl;! shell of a boiler, and thus preventing .incrustations to sOme extent, and the too contraction of the hot boiler plates. lIeinewasllot the first ruan,who constructed a mud.druIll, or who located such a device. within thesheU ot'a boUer' below water_Ijne, anl·. hence is not to batreated as a pioneer inventOr. '; ()n, thecontrllry, this particular field of invention seemllto have been ,w:elLtilled .before ,he entered it. III Trotman, an English inventor. devised a mud-d,rum,or "feed-box," as be termed it, f<:>r use, in the interior,. ·of generators; or: boilers.. Trotman'sdeyice consisted of a box,pividedbya horizontal diaphragm into two cOlllpart:l»ents,-an upper.@dlower,.....wbich bo:;:was plaCed within the boiler 1?elow the normal water-line., rhe lower CQmpartment was subdivided into a middle and two end compartments" the lattef<:>f which were cOn" nectedby passed through the top or cover of the bo:;:, and' throngh t\le, diaphragm into the lower, middle compartment, where it dischargedfeed-watel', which,flowed, first, through holes provi4edforthatpurpqse intp one of the lower end compartlllents, thence through;pipes into the other, lower end compartment, thence boles in tile the upper oompartment,and thellce through holes in ,the top or cover of the box, immediately contiguous to the feed-pipe. into the ,main cavity or circula.ting drum of the boiler. The in questioLlwas so arranged tha.t it might out of the boiler,anp readily by removing the cover and the interior diaphragm and pipes, Vide Englil:lh Letters Patent No. 1890., Trotmanappears to have utilized Whatever advantage is gained by placing thetilUddrum of a boiler below the normal water-line, instea(l of locating it in the stell.rn.space or phamber. In 1872 John W. Youman invented an aPPl:\r!l'tps, f9r heatinga,nd.p,urifyjng feed-Wilter before it comes in contact with thets\lell of the boiler. His consistll of a feed-pipe, bent the l$hape'ofan ox-bow, and suspended within thp, shell bothe,nds of which pipe the head-plate of the and, arepro"!ided on the ,outside witb stopCOcks. so that one j;o,admit.J,eed-waterand the other a! a leg of the. tlwboiler <that,.to, theblow:-.
788
FEDERAL REPORTER,
vol. 43;
off is attached) has a greater di"meter than the other leg of the pipe, !md is perforated near the end or head-plate with numerous small holes, through which feed-water is introduced into the boiler in small jets, after it has twice traversed the steam space through the bent pipe, and become heated and partially clarified. By opening the blow-off valve, the sediment which collects in the feed-pipe is discharged at intervals. Vide U. S. Letters Patent No. 132,888. In 1878 J. A. McCormick invented and obtained a patent on a mud-drum located within a boiler above the water-line, which consists merely of a trough-shaped vessel, open at the top, and suspended by bolts from the upper shell of the boiler in such manner that one end is lower than the other. This permits sediment to collect at that end, and be blown off at intervals through a blow-off pipe entering the trough at that point. 'The feed-pipe passes through the shell of the boiler, and discharges water into the upper or higher end of· the trough, and, after the latter,ha:s become full, the water either overflows into' the boiler, or runs into ,the same through a series of holes along the upper edges of the trough. Vidt U;8. Letters Patent No. 208,479. In '1Ml, Andrew.J. Stevens also 'obtained a patentona feed-water puri. fierandh ater. His device consistsOfa water tabe or cylinder suspended' within the .steam-generator above the water-line. The innetor ren:r end of the tube is closed by a cap, and the forward end by the head-plate of the boiler, against which it abuts and is firmlyseorired. Thefeed-water is discharged into the front'end of the tube bY' a pipe, and,after flowing the entire length of the tube,whichis of nearly ,the same length as the boiler, passes into the boiler through' a series of holes in the upper shell of the tube, near the rear end. Vide U. S. Letters PateniNo. 240, Another patent, granted to Lee and Bell on August 12, 1884, (U. S.' Letters Patent No. 303,523,) shows a device for heating and purifying feed-water very similar to the Stevens' device last mentioned, and need not be particularly described. The Heine mud-drum, involved in this case, as the specification and drawings show, is simply Q,box-like vessel, placed within a boiler below tl)e water..line, and has but one chamber or compartment. The drawings further show that the mud-drum in question is seton a slight incline, corresponding with the incline on which Heine sets his boiler, the rear end of the mud-drum being somewhat lower than the front end; The feed-pipe enters the forward 'end of the drum near the bottom. A blow-off pipe leads from the drum at its rear end,where the sediment is supposed to settle. An inclined plate is set within the drum a short,distance in front of the mouth ofthe'feed-pipe; to partially break the force of the feed-current, and, as the inventor says, "to· prevent the feed-water from stitring up the deposit ofmud, etc., which collects in the rea:r portion of the mud-catcher." A portion of the top and.endshell of the mud-drum 'above the mouth of the feed-pipe is cut away to some extent, to forman aperture through which· the feedwater may escape from the drum into the boiler, and mingle with ,the' water therein, after it is heated and clarified. . Heine's specification does not contain a very full description of the operationof his'mud-drum, but enough is said, I think, to show theoboh
BEINE SAFETY BOIL]j;R CO. V. ANHEUSER-BUSCH BREWIKG ASS'N.
789
ject he had in view, and the result that he intended to accomplish. Thus he says in his specification that "in the rear portion of the mud· catcher the motion of the water will be very slack, at the same time its temperature being above the boiling point; hence said two conditions insure the deposit of nearly the Qntire sediment * * * of the water, which is thus deposited in a convenient receptacle for blowing off," etc.; and in the concluding paragraph of his claim he says of the current ia. suing from the drum that "the current is opposed to the feed-current," etc. From what is thus said the court must infer that the inventor intended to create two current.s within the drum, which should flow in opposite directions. and oppose each other with some force immediately above the, inclined plate; the result of such opposition being to create a body of very slack water, thus induce sedimentation behind the inclined plate, to which point.the inc()mingcurrent of cold water would naturltlly settle by reason of its greater specific grayity,.MOOr: its motion was in. part arrested by the outflowing current of hot water.. That such is the practical operation of Heine's mud-catcher, and that .such was his theory of its pperation and effect at the time he devised. it, is further iUus- . trated by the evidence of certain experts who have testifiedin complainant's favor. .They say, in substance, that the cold feed current is de-. flected upward by the inclined plate, there meets with some resistance' from the returning hot current, falls behind the plate lto the bottom of the drum, where' it displaces, and forces upward'andQu·tward, water. that has become. heated, and, eventually becoming heated, is itBelf in like manner forced upward and outward along the upper shell of the drum, to the .o:uUet passage at its front end. Now,' in view of the prior patents above. described, the court. is of the opinion that plaintiff cannot be allowed the broad construction of the secon,d claim of itE' patent, for which its counsel contends, but should. be .limited, if not .to the precise kind of. mud-drum shown by the drawings and specification at least to a mud-drum having only one chamber or .compartment. All of the prior patents show a mud-drum· mounted within the shell or circulating drum of a boiler, and. thus exhibit the general features or elements of the combination covered by Heine's s.econd claim. The idea also of discharging feed-water into a receptacle ofsome Jrind located within a boiler, and suffering it to remain therein untU it is heated and partially purified, before it flows into the boiler,. is an idea that underlies the construction of all the described, including Heine's mud-catcher. That which distinguishes the several combinations shown by the various patents from each other is the peculiar form of receptacle employed in eacbcase t() receive .retain the long enough for it to become, heated . and partiallyclari(ied; and it seems obvioQS that, after the idea of. p1ao.. ing sucl1arecep,tacle within the boile.r w.ascOlaceived,it became possible to construct liluch.a receptac.le in a variety of wllrysj. by the exercise of or· . dinary skill, without materially, impairing. the efiicieney; of . purifier· .;( .. , ... , .. ' _.. '. t4e j
FEDERAL· ImpORTER;
vol. 48;
,:lninventorlilieHi:lil:ni, 'who hils mrerely ehaog1:ld the'forrn:bf the re;, hitherto in uss' for receiiVing land -iva ter, is not entito aim-oad construcOonof hiB'olaims, but should be1limited to that f6rni:'ilf receptacle whichhdis speci(ications and drawi'ngsdisclose. Bragg v .. 'JiliMh, :l2l U.S. 483, 7:Sup.:Ot, !Rep. 978;i&rgmt,v. Lock Co., 114 U, 8,85;'86, 5 Supd)t;R-Elp. l021vEaton v. Thompson; 114 U. S. 1, 14, !>cSup.Gt.Rep. 1042';, BifliJJ'l/"v,: Davis, 1'16 'U.. 250, 251, 6 Snp. Ct.:Rep'.'S79; Wdllemak v. ReiMr\'U5U. S. 94j5 Sup; at. Rep. 1132j Clark v. Manufar.turing Co., 115 U. S. 79,5 Sup. at. Rep. 1190. By so lirniti:ng is' tO$ay j to an,ud-drum having a single chambe'i,"""'itis evident j I think; that he will realize fhefu]lbenefit of whatever advanUtgehis specialforM'of ebnstruotionhas over other forms pre.. vio'UslyfDiuS'e) and thatisi aM,lie is entitled to. If mud-cnteiht1lr 'opElrates to· hi:lat and, clarify fEled..wnterany' more perfectly thaIiother l:!ljvieespre'Viousltiinus'&) it is evidentlydlie, ina great meal? ure,to thEl't"a(lt: that incotrt,il.1g current of cold feed-water is opposed indinedplate, by an outgoing Cllrwithin: the drUm;: and just' rent of hot-water, thus creatingca bbdy:of comparatively qUiet water back. of the illol1!1'1edplate. i RDd inducing 'a more· perfect precipitation of ment;" ·In other;-words, itris duet.t)theft\ctthat the feed-water does 'not' flow from: lbe·inlet,to the outlet;:passage at a uniform rate of speed, and with 'll'riontinu()us,cUrrenl;as in:'n1ost,oth'er devioes,but isar'rested, and held ias.it Thisresult.... that is tofsa1;,lIfbe aNntion: df currents! within the drum, Whereby agreatet dep'oBit ofsediment;isiriduced,......is evidently brought about by of l\i'1'eceptllcle hlivi:ng,b'ut a single chamber. Hence the use of a single chamber appears to- bemateria'lan(limportant inpr6duclngthe particular'i'E!s\:\!t that Heine had in view, and for that reasoh'itis'prapet.to'read Buena limi.tation into hilfolaims. ' As betO'l'6 ishown.· the complai·nallt: attemllts to· bring all mud-drums within the secdrtd elaim of itsipatent,that are located: below the normal the:feed a.nd' outlet pMMges' at the same enli of the drum, regal'dle'eB of all ofhe'r -'peculiarities' of structure. It thus makes' the loclition l!)fthe drum and tho location of the 1eed and outlet passages the sole limiting features or its second c]aih1, utterly igliorillg ureso£. construction that' Heii1e's specification and dmwingsexhi bi t; that areessentia:tlto produce theetfect thilt hellad in view. Now,' inasm:u'ch as icombinatioi:nj[c the shell,of aboi1erwith' alnu:d-dtum ' located itt: the interior of the' saine was old, it occUrs to tIle :courttllat . the patentee make the features/aforesaid the sale limiting claim, unless' they were at the time'substantially tiew andulleful strut:ltnl'a,l In view ofthe prior stateoftheart, the invention is'madeto'consist substantially hi the 'new locatioh bfthe drUID, and the feed ana outlet passages,ifthe cotnplaioont's tained. BUf:, whatever maybe sa:idof theiitipol<funce of locating the' drum:bel<i>ltthent'lrm.alwater-Iineinsteadof above it, it certliinly not blil ,pretend.d was the :first one to discover'stlchadvimtilgei, or to utilize it, because Trotman;-8os isabbve shown,placed his feed-box
HEINE SAFETY BOlLEli CO, II. AXHEV8£R-BUSCH BRE\yING ASS'N.
:191
-or mud-catcher in the very bottom of the boiler, and Younlan's specifithemud·di'um below the watercation also line. Neither does it appear to the court that there was anything substantially new 41 tbe,idea"of}ocating .the:feed-and,ou.tJlet passages at the same end of the drum. The sole object of that method of construction . to,., to (trop ItS. boder. With the same ohject in vie",,Youman; 'in the ifeed-waterh,ea;ter and abo\1e passage near the front end of the boiler, not far from the inlet·. so as; to dis.' The' sariie idea is also involved iIi feed-box. The feed-water makes the circuit of the box and itsaeveral p,0int .... '.' .,; ' , ....:,,';, ,,:.::,' !.';; .. ". My conclusion is that the'secoil'dclaiDi bfthe HeifiepMert'tiditlfibt be bIUi&luu.d..catcher embodying substantially all of the structural features whiell'lilsdi'aWings disolose. In view' of what has been "that 'tHe' iei' 'Heat8r
fere; .... 'as
'tt
does ,is'a!tSdlpa'Wrnea:.rrtlle :U ."S. l'
'is 1stislo'etHFbY'a'diaphragrn 'into eompa'rttn'ents. 'flje:feed.Lwat'eris'intro,flows thfOugh·-the lower eompilrtmeIitto thlHar end; hHhe, :din to the uppefehamber, fto",s . back,through th'at cbarrtberlo Hie en terib'g through hJciles in thelopshell()f thechatnbe.l"'·'ihtoth'e boiler. It is also provided' 'with a: blow-off, by which the 'sediIheIit that cdllects ,in the two chanabers can be removed. As the complltinaIJt; in limited' to It mud-drum stich as 'his is, tp It drum haVing 'Mtone follows that Smith's ,with its,twQ chambers is notan . . ' , . .. . . .. " . ,The bill will be dismissed. , " ., \ "
.it,may'Wl
hilI:.
. puTiti'er;"i6r u inud-arurn,ll as
It'tJoi'l'Sists ,of:bi
9;181.
fl.
'!;
'192
vol. 43.
STEARNS
et
at fl.
PHILLIPS
et at
(Circuit Court, E. D. MicMgan. July 7, 1890.) LPJ.'1'IINTI POK
Letten patent No. 828,080, October 18,1885, to John E. Stuart for a wIndow-frame screen consisting'of a couibinatiOn of four bar!!, each having a longitodinal tongue on one eide, and a slot at one'end to receive the tongue of the contiguous bar, 80 that the frame may be adjus:ted to fit windows of different sizes, is not Toid for want of invention, though the bars alone are not patentable· While the malrlng of euch ban is liot in itself an infringement of the patent, making them with 1ntent to COmbine them as in tbe paiE)nted device is an ment. ' ' ,
INVlllNTIoNll--Wnroow, BORRENS-INVENTION.
.. 8J.In-lNPRINGEMENT.
8.
SiME.
Said 'patent isinfrlnged by a device oonetstlnll' of four ba"" eacb having a tongue on the .nside, and a groove at the end for the reception of the tongue of the ous bar, though the groove is made square, so that the tongue 1I.ts in it 10'oeely, and the 'union of the bars is eeoured by ,corner pieces. ", Where tbe inventive oharacter of a patented device Ie queet{on",ble, the large aud Increasing ealee ot the device may betaken into consideration in determining ita , , " .' , " , ,'., , , ,
"
InEquity. , On pleadings and , was a bill to recover damages. for the infringement of patent No. iss\led October 13, 1885, to John E. Stuart, for a windowframe screen. The object of the invep.tion was stated to 1>e "to produce a frame for a window or door screen in which each of the four sides ofthe ,same is m8.deof a single stickor strip of wooq, and so formed, and joined as to qecapable of being moved or adjusted upon each other, so as to ,fit any as the interior of a win,dow or door frame of a building, whether large or small, within, certain limits, also without regard to the proportion between the length and width of the same; that is to say, the four sticks constitutiqg the frame are shaped and joined 1'10 they may be adJusted to correspond to any possible rectangular parallelogram within. (lertain limits as to size." The claims alleged to be infringed are the first and second, which read esfollows: "(I) A frame made np of side pieces or bars, D, joined as shown, each bar being formed with a longitudinal tongue, a, at one side thereo,f, and a slot, C, at one end of the bar in line with the tongue; the slots of each bar being of a .size to receive and be filled by the tongue oUhe contiguous bar, SUbstantially ,as described, and for the purpose set forth . .. (2) A screen-lrame composed of side pieces or bars, D, joined as shown, each chamber being formed with longitudinal depressions orl'abbets, d, d, and tongue, a, at one side thereof, and the slot, C, at the end of the bar in line with the tongue, the slots of each bar being of a size to receive and be filled by the tongue of the contiguous bar, haVing an inner depression, g, in which to receive the wire cloth or screen, substantially as shown." The defenses were: First, that the patent was void for want of inven'tion; BeCOnd, non-infringement. W. Smith, for complainants. Geurge H. Lothrop, for defendants.
a.
».
PHILLIPS.
793
BROWN, J. This is a· very simple invention, so simple indeed as to suggest a doubt whether it involves anymore than the mechanical adjustability of four bars made exactly alike, and each of which, individuallyand standing alone, is admitted not to be patentable. The popularity of this device, however, as attested by the large and rapidly increasing sales made every year since the patent was issued, indu(,es us to lean towards a construction of the patent favorable to the inventor. The first claim when analyzed is found to consist of a frame constructed of four bars, each of which is formed with a longitudinal tongue upon one side, and a slot at the end, fitted to receive the tongue of· the contiguous bar. The second claim is practically the same as . the first, the longitudinal depression or rabbet being essential to the production of the tongue, the purpose of which tongue is stated. to be to receive the wire cloth or SCreen. Without the rabbets, there would be no tongue. Hence the' first and second claims are practically identical. . It is true the complainants' first original claim was far the bars alone, and that it was rejected upon reference to the Munn patent, and that such rejection was acquiesced in; but it does not follow that, if these bars were made with the intent thatthey should be joined together in a 'or combined, it would not be patentable. A combination may be patentable though each element of the combination may be old; and we do not see that it makes any difference in principle whether the separate elements are similar to each other or dissimilar, if in combination they produce a novel result. In this case the new product is not a window-screen, but a window-screen which may be made to fit a window of any size. No other window-screen possessing this interadjustabilityhas been shown us. Although this feature is found· in one or two other devices, it is accomplished by means so different from those adopted' by Stuart that we are loth to deprive him of his claim to the title of inventor. For instance, the Bacon drawing exhibits It square ot parquetr.r formed of four bars. grooved along both edges, and provided with tenons on' both ends; and the drawing shows them put together so that they form a rectangle, the tenons fitting into the groove of each adjoining bar, and the groove also receiving the tenons on the sides or edges of the blocks inclosed within the bars. The bars differ from those of the Stuart patent in having tenons at both ends, instead of a slot at one end, and a long groove upon both sides, instead of a tongue upon one side. While a capability of adjustment follows from the construction of the bars, they are not made with reference to this, hut are constructed of a predetermined length, for the purpose of inclosing panels of a given size, and forming a design which is capable of indefinite repetition. The purpose of this construction is to produce an ornamental effect, and a firm interlocking of the numerous panels and bars which constitute the flooring. An essential feature of the Stuart patent,-viz.; the longitudinal tongue to which the wire screen is fastened,-is conspicuously absent in Bacon drawing·.
194' , !;
FEDEBAIi .BEfOMER,
'Voh 43.
sh61vsa'quilt (frame, consisting ,(lr foUl); parsr conin·having longitIndinali (groowes instead of tongues, and pr. tenonS: instead 'ofgrooves, being similar in.dthis respect to: the,llJarsof the Bapon isa frame adj1,lstable 10ngitudirnJaly only",: A lateral' adjustment is 0 btail1ed olily:by' using. pairs oLendl bars of different lengtns. r , ' composed ofthree kinds MoorS; ·viz':i (1) Side :harsllaoving tongues <;>u oneo! theidongitud... ina! !siHesji (2) end ,bat's whibh ha\Te'tongues on pueo£. tbeir longitud," in both ,ends; (3),an intermediate whioh ba!tongues onbotli:Of its· sides. aud'grooveB in. both ends. a Jon¢tudinal . 'l1hi9:atructure resembles,.the,Prindle'deviee ,but:thereis no provision fo,ra lateraladjuBtment,except. by. changh,ig;·t:he:eudnblU'8'. : !:N cit, ,'only .are the bats difierentlyconstructed from those of the Stuart patent, but the matter of adjustability is not men tioDtifdJ either'in.· the speoificll'tjons. or. claim. The: BlallChard patent'Jar/a pl'i.ntel"s case undoubtedly contains the. element of::adjustiibility\ and in thifl respect it resembles.. the Stuart pat., :our attention has.1been called; but ent'more closaly: ·than .any to the means"by which this is;r,eachedare'·s(f different from, those employed byStuart,thatiit.canhardly,besupposed that hecQuldreceive the gestion owp.method:?bj an examination of the' Blanchard patent., each provided with a transverse. recess for The 'another bar; 8I1d the outer side ofeacb, bari'S ,grooved the toireceiv6 a:keylwhiah.is driven into the recess gether,'ThesBi;bnrs do not show a tongue on one'oftheir sides, ora corresptmding:alot· in the end, as tequired by the Stuart patent. The Blanchard frame jis .not themeilns, for interlocking the barswhieh arelclMmed: in tbeStuar.t·· patent, nor with; the depressioJl rabbet which is one of the elements of the St,nart construction; . The' ;'patent .spows Ii nrame iri WI hich the balS are joined by mitered ;jointsi, ,arid Ilre held together by corner, ,piEicesapplied to each of:theframe;eachcol'nerpiece curved edges,. which embrace the'moulded portion of the frame bars,and thus llecure them gethe... ,; i There is :no adjustment ,of tongue and· groove' as in the Stuart iba:t:S are also held together by metallic corner.piecesJ': While they have.the longitudinal tongue, they halVe n6{;e'rid grbovepand therefore cilnnotbe:put together in .the manner showndii the Stuart patent. Upon the whole, we·think there is a pat-. entablenolVeIty, in the Stuart device, 'although the scope of the in:vention iSiundoubtedly Ii narrow one; , {([)hebars'used;by the defendants,are also alike. alk naving along.T,· and a groove at theend,for the recepti0ri. of the itoD'gtie: of, thecontigpoi,ls bar; In the earlier device,knowri aB'the i 'H888,Pattern," the end grooves, are also made!D-shaped, to hold the tongueA:irmly.;;·.butin.the laterderice, known as the "1889 Pattern,'/ this groove is made square, so that the tongue fits loosely.. In both cases
TM
strUotedVUpOD :anoppositeiprinciple:to ihoseused :by:
I
1
, DEt:VIN' tI.· BI!:ISE.
'195
the union of the bars: is secured by comer piooes naving grooves, in which the tongue slides, and the; bars&te thus held firinly together without the aid of ,the end groov-es. The,longitudinaltongues form a depression or rabbet around the inneredgeofthe frame in which the wire cloth is secured as in the Stuart patent, and is thus countersunk into the frame, so that its edgings and fastenings are not exposed. Both of.thedefendants' devices contain the of the Stuart patent,witb"the addition of the corner piecee, which .areunnecessllry in the heavier and more accurately fitting construction of the Stullrt The loose action of the tongue and groove in the 1889 pattern ill obvil:msly intended as ,an evasion. of the requirement of thecomplaipants' claims that the slot of eachtbarbe of a size .to receive and be filled by the tongue of the contiguous bar, and is evidently relied upon tore1ieve defendants in case the 1888 pattern be held an infringement. The only real deviation in either of these devices from the Stuart pattern is in the transfer of the strain of the connection from tne groove in the end of the bars to the grooves in the comer pieces.. , This. introductipn. of comer pieces may enable the defendants to give their bars a sOmewhat lighter construction, but it is rather an addition to than a deviation from the complainants' patent. Indeed, as defendants' expert argues,"the bars are just as firmly joined if the slots upon the end of the bar were entirely wanting,"and, further, "that the bars depend entirely upon the corner pieces, as a necessary element to joillthem." In these. devices the defendants have unquestionaply seized upon the two leading features of the Stuart patent, viz., the longitUdinal tongue, to which the 'wire oloth is attached, and the grooves attheend' of the bars, through which the longitudinal tongue is allowed to run" and, which secureS the important feature of adjustability. While defendants may ha.ve the right to make these bars,· if they manufacture them with the intent that they shall be put together in the form of window-spreens, they are liable as infringers. WalIi. Pat. § 407. Should the defendants omit this groove altogether,as they appear to have done. in some much more serious question would arise, but one we do nat feel called upon to consider here. We think compll1inants are eptitled to a decree for an injunction, and for the usual refertlIlceto a waster to compute damages.
DELVIN tI. HEISE
et tIC.
(Cwcuf.t cotJn't, D. Maryland. July 10, 1890.) PI.'l'JI1M'I! 1'O-..IxVBNTIONS-PBlpR STATB OJ' THB ABT-INJ'BINGBlIfBN'l'. Sash cord guides haviJ;igbeen made prior to 1879 without side flanges. an4 with . rounded· end flanges, there is no patentable invention in the improvement described by lettel'!lpatent No. 216,767, issued June 24, 1879; to Sloan and Clarl!:soll, consistmg of '.lIu,h cord guide havillg semi-circular end flanges and aem,i-cYllndrica1 .. aM sides that meet the face cssing'eilds; all of uniform dIameter with tb.e of thlil casing at right angles. and without a flange, wberebl the dev1l:e ill adap" fOr inamortile formed bl' alatterally cuttimg,b1t. '