834'
FEDERAL REPORTER,
vol. 48. It
HAMMOND ·BUCKLE
Co.
17. HATHAWAY,
01.
(OircuU
D. OonnecticUt. January 16,1892.)
1.
Letters patent No,S01;884, Issued July 15, 1884, to Theodore E. King and Joseph , Hammond, Jr., are for 'an Improvement, in shoe-buckles and similar articles, consisting in a tongue-f!la.,e.qomposed of a single piece of metal doubled upon itself, and fbrll:ed at its rear and nextthe catch-plate,' The tongue swung In this bifurcationt its pivot being located underneath the Indentations in the under-fola of thlltQnguepartlallyelllbJ;!IoOOd tb.e ends ofthe pivot-pin, which was.beld between the two' The ooject of ttiis construction was to cause the tongue-plate to extend reliMt'ard of the tongu8,Jformlllg there a bearing surface for the: catch.plate. The the tongue, pivoted directly to , llrl\tolallD. was: "In combination, the the tongue-plate, and the tOngue extending rearward of the' pivot, and in contact with the cateh-plate,!\\lheD:the. parts'are engaged... Beld,.tbat the patent was in,tri,ngedby a '\lowpolled of two. riveted .t ogethe r, the, lower,belnl{ pro.. , ViWldWlth prOJections; fb Which the pivots of the tongue tur'll, Slid WhlCh fit lOtO open lriga. in the upper. plate :.when t.he two Ii.etogether j and the Up.1 er, which is a . .. p spring-plate, being blfurqated, alld eXtelldlng on. both sides of the. tongue rearwaist, to aflord a bearing surface for the catch-plate, though the lower plate has no ,exteDaion. . , The fact that the upper plate is a spring-plate, and similar in construction to the aprtng-plate of an older patent, (No. 19l,758, also issued to King and Hammond,) does not,prevent since"as combined with the under plate, it forms a toAgueplate suostantially like tbat of the double plate of the paten. 48 Fed. B,ep. 805, afIlr.med. , ':':
!'4TUTB !'OB
B. S.urlll..,
On rehearing. SHIPMAN, J. This is a petition by the defendilOts for a rehearing of so muoh of the above-entitled cause 8S relates to the infringement of the first olaimof letterspateiltNo. 301;884 by 'U1emanufacture of" Ex!hibit Weld Buckle D." The tongue-plate of the patented buckle consists of. the double l('8,vesof 'a single piece of metal folded upon itself. ,The under fold partially embraces' the ends of the pivot-pin, which it hdldsbetween itself and the upper fold. When the tongue passes through the forksGf the tongue plate, they aTe sprung apart, which causes a slightlooking action. 'l'his latter peCUliarity is the subject of the fourth claim of the patent, and does Dot exist in any of the defendants' buckles. Buckle D is composed of two plates superimposed upon and closely fastened to each other. The tongue does not crowd apart the forked extensionofa. tongue-plate,but the upper plate isn spring-plate, which is "pressed away from" the.lowe'l' plate' .by a projection upon the middle part of the tongue. As was the· former opinion, the upper plate "is bifurcated, and 'M(tendson both sides of the tongue rearward, to afford a bearing surface for the catch-plate, but the lower plate has no such extension beyond the tongue-pivot." The foundation of the defendants' argument against infringement is that the tongue-plate of buckle D is the lower plate, and that the upper plate is simply a springplate, and is the spring-plate of No. 191,758. If the tongue-plate is the lower plate alone, there is no infringement, because it does not extend rearwardly, so as to afford a support for the catch-plate, and the tongue is pivoted at a point slightly above its surface. While the tongue-plate
TlIE WM, GATES.
835
of the patfmt'is a double-leaved plate, folded upon itself, this precise construction eaJ1not be vital,but a double-leaved plate, securely fastened together, must be the l:Ilill'l6 thing asa folded piece of metal. .. Neither can it be vital thll;t the two leaves of the plate :should both extend rearwardly of the pi\7ot. The defendants do not rest upon these minor details of construction, but their point is that the upper plate is a substantial repetition of th,e spring-plate of No. 191,758, whlch was, confessedly not a tongue-plate. To one en,d of the tongue-plate of 191,758 was at., tached a strip of spring-metal, having one end free, and manifestly detached from the tongue-plate. To thefraeend of this spring plate a tongue was hinged, and was, in this way, indirectly pivoted to the tongue-plate. The tongue bore or acted upon the tongu6-vlate by means of a lever end forming part of the tongue, and in the rear of its pivot. The spring-plate of buckle D is closely attached to the lower plate, and is aJorll'l of the double base plate, which is familiar in arctic buckles; but r do not think it material, if true, that, asaspring-plate, it is like the spring-plate of 191,758. It is, like other double plates of its class, also a tongue-plate. The fact that the upper plate is a spring-plate, and is like an older spring-plate, does not modi(y my opinion that the double plate of buckle D is the same thing as the dQuhle plate of No. 301,. 884, and that its bifurcated extension is substantially the same thing as that shown in the patent, although the two leaves do not extend rearwardly together or in contact with each other. It is true that the spring action of buckle D is effected in a different way from that of the patent, and it is probable that it is e·ffected in the way which had been previously indicated; but it seems to me that the principle of the first claim of No. 301,884 has beennreproduced in buckle D in substantially the same way, and that the way inwhich sprinK action is obtained does not materially affect the questionot infringement of the first claim. The petition is denied.
Tu:E BAKER
WK.
GATES.
et 01.
t1. THE
(DfBtrict Oourt, E. D. Virg-t7&'ta. Jul,. 18, 1881.)
lIABrrnm LIENS-PRIORITIES. Among the holders of maritime liens equal in diRIlity he shall be preferred who llrst institutes prooeedings to enforce his omlIn.
In Admiralty. Libel by Baker and others against the Wm. Gates to enforce certain maritimeliens,'which were all of equal dignity. Sharp w Huyhea, for libelants. . EUis &: Phmn, for petitioners.