BOYD V. STEDMAN.
153
It is necessary in these machines that the detector lever should be moved out of range of the revolving cam-shaft; and it is this result, accomplished by the co-action of the weighted catch-lever and the detector carrier, which constitutes the chief value of the combination contained in the fifth claim. If Boyd' had been the first inventor in this class of machines to push the detector lever out of range of the cam-shaft by means of catches and weighted levers, I think this claim should receive a broad construction. But an examination of the prior state of the art seems to forbid this, and to narrow the claim to the particular means by which Boyd accomplished this result. The English patent of Muir and McIlwham, of 1866, shows catch devices in connection with weighted levers which push the detector lever away from the revolving cam. I am aware that the English device has two weighted levers, instead of one, which is found in the Boyd apparatus, and that, consequently, in the English device the essential elements of the combination are five, instead of four; but this isno more than saying that the Boyd combination is more simple and compact, and is therefore an improvement upon the Muir and M.cIlwham machine. In both devices, however, a revolving cam, striking the end of the detector lever, releases catch mechanism, which causes a weighted lever to fall, and to move, in its descent, the detector carrier away from the revolving cam. The important feature which Boyd says constitutes the chief value of his fifth claim is undoubtedly found in the English In their fundamental features, and in the result accomplished, the two machines do not differ. I do not, therefore, see how I can give this claim of the Boyd patent the broad construction contended for. In view of the prior state of the art, this -claim J;llust be limited to the improved form of devices therein described. The defendants' machine differs in important particulars from Boyd's. The structural arrangement of its parts is not the same. The catch mechanism and other portions of the machine are quite different from those found in the Boyd apparatus. I do not deem it necessary to enter into a particular comparison of the two machines, because it is apparent upon examination that, if Boyd is limited to his improved form of devices, the defendants' machine does not infringe. No infringement being shown in this case, it follows that the bill must be
,.
1M
BDERAL REPOllTER,
vol. 40. DAVIS
HAT-SwtAT PATENTS FOR
MANUF'G
CO.V.
S. M. ,
CO.
(Oircuit Oom't, N. D. New Yor'k. OF NOY'ELTY.
October 11, 1889.) I
A hat-sweat which is new only in uniting the tacking slip to the leather band by a turn-over seato instead of by the ordinary seam. in which the stitches perforate the outer face of the band. 18 not patentable for want of novelty.
In Equity. Bill for an infringement of patent. For opinion on motion to set aside service of summons, see 31 Fed. Rep. 294; on motion for preliminary injunction, see 32 Fed. Rep. 401. John. R. Bennett, for complainant. Edm,u,nd Wetmore and WiUiam.A. ;Jenner, for defendant. , WALLACE-, J. The question which ,arises at the outset oftMs case is whether there is any patentable novelty in the hat-sweat of. the6.rst claim oithe patent. The clltim is: I' A BWel;\t for hats or caps of any kind, having a cord, reed, or spring-rod
l\ttachedto the body of the, sweat or band by means ofa covering lapping over the reed, and secured to the band by a row of stitches passing through the lapped portionof the covering and through the band at a distance from its edges, substantially as shown and described." "This claim is for a, sweat ,leather, (it plain leather band) secured to a
tacking slip {generitlly j;nade of oil-silk or glazed muslin) inclosing a reed or, cord. The Pluts are secured together as follows:. The tacking slip is folded around the reedal}d laid sufficiently over the edge of the le!1ther band to two to be united by either zigzag or straight stitches which pass down close to the reed and through the tacking slip a short distance within the edge of the leather band, and. after the parts have be4;ln thus united" the' tacking slip is brought around parallel with the back ffj,ce of the, leather baml, thus folding the edge of the band back upon itself, apd concealing the stitches completely on the outer face. as thus prepared, is ready to be attached to the hat by The stitching t4e,tacking slip to the hat body. It may ,be shortly described as consisting of a tacking slip folded over a reed or cord, and a leather band, the parts being united by an ordinary tum-over seam. If the stitches perforated the outer face of the leather band they would come in contact with the head of the wearer of the hat, and furnish channels for conducting perspiration to the body of the hat, thus discoloring and soiling the exterior. In the prior state of the art hat-sweats were variously prepared and attached to the hats. In some instances a plain band of leather was sewed or whipped directly to the body of the hat; in others, cloth inclosing a reed was stitched to the leather band, and the band was sewed to the hat-body; in others, the tacking slip of cloth inclosing the reed was first sewed to the hat-body near the junction of the brim, and then the leather band was sewed to the tacking slip by over and over stitches inclosing the reed; and again, the tacking slip, with its inclosed reed, was stitched to the leather band by over and over stitches securing
MAGIN '.CABI&
156
the A prior patent to Bigelow shows a hat-sweat in which an independent tacking slip is secured to the leather band by stitches which pass over and inolose the reed of the tacking slip, or by a straight line, of stitchesjand when this tacking slip is stitched to the hat-body, and the leather band folded to its place, the stitches over the reed are on the back face of the band, out of contact with the head of the wearer. It is apparent that the hat-sweat of the claim is only new in the feature which consists in uniting the tacking slip to the leather band by a turn-over seam instead .of by the ordinary seam, in which the stitches perforate the outer face of the band. ThlS is not invention, not only because the turn-over seam was an old and well-known substitute for the ordinary seam in making garments, but also because that seam had been used in hat-sweats, as shown in the patent to Baldwin, as a substitute for the, ordinary seam, and for the purpose of protecting the hat from the perspiration liable to pass through the needle The bill is dismissed, with costs.
MAGIN'll. CARLE. SAME
v.
LEHMAN.
(Circuit Court, N. D. New York. October 28. 1889.) PAftNT8 lI'OR INVENTIONS-ANTICIPATION.
Llltters patent No. 248,646, were granted to Charles Gordon October 25,1881, for improved apparatus for cooling and drawing beer. The specifications claimed as inventions the surrounding the faucet with a cold-air passage, an upper ice-box connectedwith the cold-air passage, Uy means of which the air cooled in the ice-box and the water produced by the melting ice cools the liquid in the supply.pipe connected with the faucet, and the surrounding the outer pipe with a non-conducting jacket. Claim 1 was the combination of the ice-box, supply-pipe, faucet, and coldair passage. Claim 4 was the combination of the ice-box, supply-pipe, faucet, lower chamber, and colA-air passage communicating between the ice-box ,and lower chamber. HeZd, that claims 1 and 4 were anticipated by an apparatus invented and put in use by one Meinhard in 1877, and used for four years, embodying the same prin. ciples as the Gordon invention, except the non-conducting jacket surrounding the air This jacket was simply a space filled with material, to prevent the absorption of heat by the air in the cold-air passage. This addition was common knOWledge and not invention.
.
In Equity. Bills for infringement of patent. For statement of the claims of the patent, and opiniOn on former hearing as to its validity, see 24 Fed. Rep. 743. John R. Bennett and George B. Selden, for plaintiff. Josiah S7!llivan, for defendants. BLATCHFORD, Justice. These are two suits in equity, brought for the infringement ofletters patent No. 248,646, granted to Charles Gordon, October 25, 1881, for an "improvement in apparatus for cooling and drawing beer." It is the same patent which was involved. in the suits of Jlagin v. McKay and Mugin v. Welker, 24 ,Fed. Rep. 743, (decided by